Ex Parte Ganin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2004

09682001 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ALEXANDER GANIN
_____________
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2,
5-7, 9-21 and 23.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the claimed invention
and a copy of these claims is appended to this decision.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
2
Sata 5,412,702 May 02, 1995
Tam 5,717,732 Feb. 10, 1998
Khutoryansky et al. (Khutoryansky) 5,734,694 Mar. 31, 1998
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for
acquiring digital x-ray images using a servo-toma function.
During exposure, a motion controller moves the x-ray tube and
detector at different speeds and distances. The motion
controller may also change the angle of the x-ray tube relative
to the detector. In the claimed method, first and second
preparation positions are calculated for both the x-ray tube and
the detector, which first and second positions are located at
opposite ends of the scan ranges. After a first x-ray image is
obtained while the x-ray tube and detector are moved over a first
scan range, the x-ray tube and detector are moved to the second
positions where a second x-ray image is acquired while the x-ray
tube and detector are moved in directions opposite to the
direction of travel during the acquisition of the first x-ray
image.
Independent claim 10 is directed to a method for
simultaneously displaying a series of digital x-ray images.
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
3
Appealed claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khutoryansky.
Claims 6, 7 and 10-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Khutoryansky in view of Tam and Sata.
Appellant submits at page 10 of the brief that “[t]he claims
stand or fall together respecting the issues on appeal”.
Accordingly, claims 11-21 stand or fall together with independent
claim 10.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with the appellant that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness for the method defined in independent
claim 1. However, we agree with the examiner that the subject
matter of independent claim 10 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejections 1, 2, 5-7, 9 and 23, but we will
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10-21.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
4
Although Khutoryansky does not expressly disclose acquiring
digital x-ray images, we do not subscribe to appellant’s position
that displaying the x-ray images acquired by Khutoryansky in
digital format would have been unobvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art. As evidenced by Sata, the digital display of
such imagery was known in the art at the time of filing of the
present application. However, we agree with appellant that
Khutoryansky does not teach or suggest calculating first and
second positions for the x-ray tube and detector that are located
at opposite ends of the scan range and moving the x-ray tube and
detector to the second positions before acquiring the second x-
ray image. While the reference teaches that the system returns
to the center position after each tomographic exposure, claim 1
on appeal does not preclude such a center positioning before
moving the x-ray tube and detector to the second position.
However, Khutoryansky fails to teach or suggest moving the x-ray
tube and detector to positions corresponding to the presently
claimed second position after the center positioning. All that
can be gleaned from Khutoryansky regarding second and subsequent
x-ray exposures is that the x-ray tube and detector are returned
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
5
to its initial HOME position after being placed at the center
position. We agree with appellant that while the HOME position
may be either at the head or the foot of the patient, the
reference does not teach that the HOME position changes during
multiple exposures.
The examiner sets forth the following rationale at page 8 of
the answer:
When acquiring a series of medical images it is
essential to perform the imaging as quickly as possible
because movement of the patient or movement of organs
within the patient during the procedure could result in
faulty images and erroneous diagnosis. For this reason,
it is common practice to minimize scan time by scanning
a patient alternately beginning at opposite ends of the
table (ie the end of one scan is the beginning of the
next scan). To always start a scan from the head end
of the table as appellant argues Khutoryansky does
would take twice as much time and would likely yield
misleading images.
However, while the examiner’s reasoning has a certain logical
appeal, it is in contradistinction to the specific teaching of
Khutoryansky of returning the system to the center position after
each tomographic exposure.
Since claims 6 and 7 depend on, and further limit, claim 1,
we will also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
6
The rejection of independent claim 10 is another matter.
The method recited in claim 10 does not include any of the moving
of the x-ray tube and detector between first and second
positions. Claim 10 simply requires the simultaneous displaying
of digital x-ray images that are acquired in a series of imaging
steps. We agree with the examiner that Khutoryanski fairly
teaches acquiring a series of images corresponding to different
angular slices of interest, as does Sata, and we find that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ conventional digital imagery for displaying the acquired
series of images. To display digital x-ray images simultaneously
is taught by Sata, even though the simultaneous display is of a
scanogram and an x-ray CT image. In our view, based on the
collective teachings of the applied references and the state of
the prior art, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to digitally display either a single x-ray image
or a plurality of x-ray images taken in sequence. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). We note that
appellant bases no arguments upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, in order to rebut the
inference of obviousness.
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
7
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9 and 23 is reversed, whereas the
rejection of claims 10-21 is sustained. Accordingly, the
examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed in
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/vsh
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
8
MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
9
APPENDIX
Claims 1 & 10
1. A method for acquiring digital x-ray images, said
method comprising:
identifying scan parameters designating slices of
interest from a patient anatomy;
calculating scan ranges for each of said slices,
said scan ranges corresponding to distances traveled by
each of a detector and x-ray tube while said x-ray tube
exposes said detector to radiation;
calculating first and second preparation positions
for each of said x-ray tube and detector, said first
and second preparation positions being located at
opposite ends of said scan ranges and corresponding to
a distance traveled by said x-ray tube and detector,
said x-ray tube not exposing said detector to x-rays
while moving through said preparation positions;
moving said detector and x-ray tube to said first
detector and x-ray tube preparation positions,
respectively;
acquiring a first x-ray image with said detector
while moving said detector in a first direction over a
first detector scan range and moving said x-ray tube in
a second direction over a first tube scan range, said
second direction differing from said first direction,
said first x-ray image being acquired based on said
scan parameters;
moving said detector and x-ray tube to said second
detector and x-ray tube preparation positions,
respectively; and
Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
10
APPENDIX (cont.)
acquiring a second x-ray image with said detector
while moving said detector in said second direction
over a second detector scan range and moving said x-ray
tube in said first direction over a second tube scan
range, said second x-ray image being acquired based on
said scan parameters.
10. A method for displaying digital x-ray images in a
multi-image format, said method comprising:
identifying scan parameters designating multiple
slices of interest from a patient anatomy;
acquiring a series of images with a digital x-ray
detector, each image in said series of images
corresponding to a slice of interest;
displaying images simultaneously as each image in
said series of images is acquired; and
after acquisition and simultaneous display of said
each image in said series of images, halting said
acquiring step until reinitiated by an operator.