Ex Parte Frakes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2010

10865084 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/865,084 06/10/2004 David Harold Frakes 62020-1660 8861
24504 7590 07/20/2010
THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP
600 GALLERIA PARKWAY, S.E.
STE 1500
ATLANTA, GA 30339-5994
EXAMINER
LE, BRIAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DAVID HAROLD FRAKES,
JOSEPH WILSON MONACO, MARK J.T. SMITH
and AJIT P. YOGANATHAN
________________

Appeal 2009-002373
Application 10/865,084
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, Jr., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-002373
Application 10/865,084

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 45 to 54. Claims 1 to 44 have been canceled.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed invention relates to a data reconstruction method and
computer-readable medium having code for reconstructing three-
dimensional (3D) data having two-dimensional (2D) velocity images by
directionally interpolating between 2D velocity images to generate a 2D
intermediate velocity image (Spec. ¶ [0004], [0009]; claims 45 and 50).
Directional interpolation may be performed by determining a motion field
(i.e., motion estimation) based on divergence information associated with
the 2D intermediate velocity image; step 150 in Fig. 1C; claims 45 and 50).
Claim 45 is representative of the claimed invention, and reads as
follows:
45. A data reconstruction method, comprising the steps of:
accessing a three-dimensional (3D) data set, the 3D data set
comprising two-dimensional (2D) velocity images; and
directionally interpolating between the 2D velocity images to generate
a 2D intermediate velocity image, wherein the step of directionally
interpolating comprises the step of determining a motion field based on
divergence information associated with the 2D intermediate velocity image.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Amini US 6,757,423 B1 June 29, 2004
(filed Feb. 18, 2000)

Appeal 2009-002373
Application 10/865,084

3
Frakes, Application of an Adaptive Control Grid
Interpolation Technique to MR Data Set Augmentation Aimed
at Morphological Vascular Reconstruction, MEDICAL IMAGING
(2002): IMAGE PROCESSING, Milan Sonka, J. Michael
Fitzpatrick, Editors, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4684 (2002), pp.
1161-1167.

(i) The Examiner rejected claims 45 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
based upon the teachings of Amini.
(ii) The Examiner rejected claims 46 to 49 and 51 to 54 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Amini and Frakes.
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 45 and 50, the
Examiner relies upon Amini as disclosing the feature recited in these claims
of determining a motion field based on divergence information (Ans. 4).
Specifically, the Examiner cites column 10, lines 1 to 15 of Amini as
disclosing the recited step of determining a motion field based on divergence
information (which the Examiner equates to “sum of squared difference
values” associated with the 2D intermediate velocity image) (Ans. 4). The
Examiner contends that “divergence information” does not necessarily have
to be interpreted as information obtained by applying a divergence operator
and a divergence equation complying with fluid physics (Ans. 7-8), and
argues (Ans. 8) that the plain meaning of “divergence” is an amount of
difference or disparity. The Examiner concludes that the phrase “divergence
information” can be clearly interpreted as “sum of squared differences
values” (Ans. 8).
Appellants argue, inter alia, (App. Br. 12-18; Reply Br. 5-8) that the
applied reference to Amini fails to teach or suggest operating on divergence
information, as set forth in claims 45 and 50. More specifically, Appellants
Appeal 2009-002373
Application 10/865,084

4
argue (App. Br. 18) that “Amini’s SSD [sum-of-squared differences]
equation is a mathematical equation that does not represent any physical
phenomenon in fluid dynamics,” and that Amini’s SSD equation is distinct
from physics-based fluid flow operations that cannot be used as a priori
information characteristic of the Law of Conservation of Mass (App. Br. 16-
18). Appellants contend (App. Br. 13) that Amini’s SSD is very different
from divergence in the context of fluids data, and that such is evidenced by
Appellants’ express reference to divergence as a mathematical
representation of fluid physics as disclosed at paragraph [0151] of the
Specification (Reply Br. 7-8).
Amini discloses a method for reconstructing data using discrete 2D
slices and computing a motion field based on information such as sum-of-
squared differences (SSD) values (col. 9, l. 66 to col. 10, l. 13). Although
Amini discloses determining displacement vector fields from magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) data (col. 1, ll. 11-17), which is similar to
Appellants’ disclosed invention for data reconstruction for medical imaging
applications using 2D image slices (Spec. [0005]), Amini is silent as to
equating SSD values to divergence information as set forth in the claims on
appeal. The Examiner has not sufficiently shown how or why SSD values
are the same as divergence information, and, notably, Amini is silent as to
calculating anything related to divergence.
Based on our finding with respect to Amini, we agree with Appellants
(App. Br. 16) that “Amini’s SSD equation does not anticipate
Appellant[s’][sic] divergence information.” The feature of operating on
divergence information, i.e., information relating to divergence, is simply
Appeal 2009-002373
Application 10/865,084

5
missing from Amini, and the Examiner has not shown that such a feature is
inherent in the operation of Amini.
Thus, with respect to the data reconstruction method and computer-
readable medium recited in independent claims 45 and 50, Amini fails to
teach the limitation common to each of these claims of determining a motion
field based on divergence information associated with the 2D intermediate
image. It follows that the Examiner has not established anticipation, because
Amini does not disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention
set forth in independent claims 45 and 50. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter set forth in dependent claims 46 to 49 and 51 to
54, since the teachings of Frakes fails to cure the noted shortcomings of
Amini as set forth above with respect to claims 45 and 50 from which these
claims respectively depend. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
The anticipation rejection of claims 45 and 50 is not sustained because
Amini does not teach data reconstruction using directional interpolation
including determining a motion field based on divergence information. The
obviousness rejections of (i) claims 46 to 49 and 51 to 54 over Amini and
Frakes is not sustained because the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
concerning the teachings of Amini and Frakes does not support a legal
conclusion of obviousness (KSR Int’l., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).

Appeal 2009-002373
Application 10/865,084

6
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 45 and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e).
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 46 to 49 and 51 to 54 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 45 to 54 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

THOMAS, KEYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, L.L.P.
600 GALLERIA PARKWAY, S.E.
ATLANTA, GA 30339-5994