Ex Parte Carlsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

13262836 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/262,836 10/04/2011 Ingwer C. Carlsen
24737 7590 09/08/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009P00320WOUS 3399
EXAMINER
YANG, WEI WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INGWER C. CARLSEN, KIRSTEN MEETZ,
JOERG BREDNO, and MARK OLSZEWSKI
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-24, which are all claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to an image processing system for
providing time-concentration curves from a series of image scans over time
of an area of interest of a patient to which a contrast agent is administered.
See Spec. i-fi-1 5-6.
Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
1. An image processing system, the system
compnsmg:
a computer,
wherein the computer receives a plurality of image scans
acquired over time, the image scans being of an area of interest
of a patient to which a contrast agent was administered;
wherein the computer uses registration logic to register
the image scans to a common coordinate system to compensate
for artifacts in the image scans;
[L 1] wherein the computer uses selection logic to process the
image scans and automatically select locations at which
observed reference information is compared to modeled
reference information to obtain plausible reference
information;
wherein the observed reference information includes a
time-concentration curve representing an observed curve and
the modeled reference information includes a time-
concentration curve representing a model curve.
21. A method of determining plausible reference
information from image data, the method comprising:
acquiring the image data in the form of a series of image
scans taken over a period of time, the image scans being of an
area of interest of a patient to which a contrast agent was
administered;
2
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
registering the image scans to a common coordinate
system to compensate for artifacts in the image scans;
processing the image scans to compare observed
reference information from the image scans to modeled
reference information to obtain plausible reference information,
wherein the observed reference information includes a time-
concentration curve representing an observed curve and the
modeled reference information includes a time-concentration
curve representing a model curve; and
[L2] confirming the plausible reference information does not
include a motion artifact.
(Emphasis added regarding the contested limitations, labeled as L 1 and L2).
The Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim (Automatic Registration of Postmortem Brain
Slices to MRI Reference Volume, IEEE 0-7803-5696-9/00, 1301-1303,
(2000)), in view of Collins (Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of
Tumor Perfusion, IEEE 0739-5175/04, 65-83 (2004)), and further in view of
Kaufman (US 2007 /0276225 Al; Nov. 29, 2007). Final Act. 4--15.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim, Collins,
and Kaufman, further adding Calamante (Defining a Local Arterial Input
Function for Perfusion Mill Using Independent Component Analysis,
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 52:789-797 (2004)). Final Act. 15-17.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim, Collins,
and Kaufman, further adding Denisov (US 2004/0117130 Al; June 17,
2004). Final Act. 17-19.
3
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. With respect to claims 21-24, we
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion and adopt them as our
own. However, regarding claims 1-20, we are persuaded by Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred.
Claims 1-20
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-20
on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to the contested limitation L 1, Appellants contend that
the "model fitting" technique relied upon by the Examiner (see Collins 69-
70 and Figs. 4--5) for the claimed feature "observed reference information is
compared to modeled reference information," does not teach the remaining
part of the claim limitation- "automatically select locations" (App. Br. 14--
15). Appellants assert this is because, in Collins, "comparing" is not the
same as automatically selecting the locations associated with the
"comparing" (Id. at 14). In particular, Appellants contend that "none of the
'selection' language that the Examiner relies on is actually found in
Collins." (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner finds that "tumor locations are selected" and that "the
corresponding selection of tumor locations is carried out automatically by
the computer processor" (Ans. 21 (citing Collins 77 and Figs. 3, 5, and 15)).
We note that limitation LI, "observed reference information [from the
image scans] is compared to modeled reference information," is necessarily
limited by the last claim limitation: "wherein the observed reference
4
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
information includes a time-concentration curve representing an observed
curve and the modeled reference information includes a time-concentration
curve representing a model curve." Therefore, we particularly take note of
Collins' teaching of a comparison of time-concentration curves. We have
reviewed the cited portions of Collins relied on by the Examiner and do not
find any specific teaching of the claimed "automatically select locations"
for comparing observed reference information to modeled reference
information. Figure 4 of Collins shows a comparison between an observed
curve and a model curve for T2-weighted data, but there is no teaching or
suggestion of the limitation "automatically select locations."
Although the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figure 4 of Collins
illustrates a comparison of an observed time-concentration curve with a
model time-concentration curve for a specific location on a patient (Final
Act. 6; Ans. 20), we disagree with the Examiner's findings that the
combination of Kim, Collins, and Kaufman teaches the disputed limitation
because, without further explanation, we agree with Appellants' arguments
that Figures 5 and 15 of Collins do not teach the disputed limitations.
Specifically, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how Collins is
interpreted to satisfy the disputed limitations, nor has the Examiner (Ans.
21) answered Appellant's particular arguments (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br.
3).
Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner erred, as the analysis in the
Examiner's rejection is not sufficient to show that claims 1-20 are
unpatentable without further explanation.
5
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
Claims 21-24
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 21-
24 on the basis of representative claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Although Appellants begin by stating that independent claim 21
contains a method corresponding to independent claim 1, we note that
contested limitation L 1 is not present in claim 21, and in particular, the
corresponding limitation to L 1 in claim 21 does not recite "automatically
select[ing] locations," but instead recites "processing the image scans to
compare observed reference information from the image scans to modeled
reference information to obtain plausible reference information."
As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Figure 4 of
Collins, inter alia, teaches comparing observed reference information to
modeled reference information using time-concentration curves (Final Act.
6; Ans. 20). Thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in finding that the
combination of Kim and Collins teaches this limitation.
Appellants raise the additional argument that the Examiner has failed
to address limitation L2-"confirming the plausible reference information
does not include a motion artifact" (App. Br. 20). However, the Examiner
responds that the rejections of claims 1 and 15 address these limitations
(Ans. 28). The Examiner specifically finds that the combination of Kim,
Collins, and Kaufman teaches correction logic, which rejects plausible
reference information if it includes motion artifacts (citing Collins Fig. 12
and 77: 1 ), and that confirming is implicit in the non-inclusion of a motion
artifact (Ans. 28-29).
6
Appeal2015-004650
Application 13/262,836
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 21, as well as the rejection of claims 22-24, which are not
argued separately. We, however, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 21-24. We reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7