Ex Parte Guehring

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2014

11688993 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JENS GUEHRING1
________________

Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is Siemens A.G. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–18. Specifically, claims 1–6, 8–15,
17, and 18 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Nambu et al. (US 6,196,715 B1, March 6,
2001) (“Nambu”) and Chang et al. (US 6,195,409 B1, February 27, 2001)
(“Chang”).
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Nambu, Chang, and Ladebeck
(US 6,529,762 B1, March 4, 2003) (“Ladebeck”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and system for virtual
slice positioning in a 3-D volume data set in which the image of a subject is
represented. First, features are extracted from the 3-D volume data set that
are associated with the subject. An interdependency is determined between
the 3-D volume data set of the subject and a reference system that
corresponds to the 3-D volume data set, by setting extracted first features in
relation to corresponding second features in the reference system. A first
slice positioning that is predefined at the reference system is transferred to a
second slice positioning in the 3-D volume data set using the determined
interdependency. Image data are generated from the 3-D volume data set
along the second slice positioning. Abstract.

Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993

3
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Because Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of the
claims on appeal, we select independent claim 1 as representative. App. Br.
3, 12. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for virtual slice positioning in a 3D volume
data set representing an image of a subject, comprising the steps
of:

from a 3D volume data set representing an image of a subject,
extracting first image features associated with said
subject;

automatically electronically determining an interdependency
between said 3D volume data set of the subject and a
reference system corresponding to the 3D volume data
set, by setting the extracted first image features in
relation to corresponding second image features in said
reference system;

automatically electronically translating a first slice positioning,
that is predefined at the reference system, to a second
slice positioning in the 3D volume data set using said
interdependency; and

generating image data from said 3D volume data set according
to said second slice positioning.

App. Br. 14.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Chang with those of Nambu to arrive at the claimed
Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993

4
invention. App. Br. 6.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Nambu teaches that a “user or operator [can]
input a desired angle such that a slice from the 3-D volume set can be
obtained at [a] desired angle [read as position].” Ans. 11. The Examiner
finds further that an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that the
teachings of Chang allow one to accurately determine an accurate location in
the 3-D volume data set of the patient by registering it with a reference
template. Id. Once the interdependency between the template and the 3-D
volume image is determined, finds the Examiner, an accurate slicing
position can be determined from the template. Ans. 12 (citing Chang col. 6,
ll. 9–15).
The Examiner also finds Chang teaches that a low quality localizer
image is compared with the template. Ans. 13. The Examiner further finds
that Chang teaches that accurate position parameters are then obtained from
the template such that a high-quality scan can be acquired at the particular,
precise location. Id. The Examiner relies on Chang for teaching the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “automatically electronically determining an
interdependency” between the reference and the first image. Id. The
Examiner finds the combination of Nambu and Chang teaches precise slice
positioning from reference positions can be applied to the 3-D volume data
set of Nambu to acquire an anatomically accurate slice from the data set as
taught by Chang.
Appellant specifically points to the limitation of claim 1 reciting
“automatically electronically determining an interdependency between said
Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993

5
3D volume data set of the subject and a reference system corresponding to
the 3D volume data set, by setting the extracted first image features in
relation to corresponding second image features in said reference system.”
App. Br. 3. Appellant agrees with the Examiner that Nambu teaches
selectively extracting various slices or views from an already-existing 3-D
volume data set. Id. at 4. However, Appellant argues, the Examiner has not
provided any reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill, would combine
Nambu with Chang, which teaches using a first image to set a slice position
in a second, subsequently acquired image. App. Br. 5.
Appellant asserts that Chang teaches analyzing an image by
comparing it with a previously acquired, low-resolution template, and then
using features extracted by correspondence with the template to set the slice
positioning for acquiring data in a second, subsequently acquired image. Id.
Appellant thus appears to argue that Nambu teaches the limitation reciting a
“3D volume data set of the subject” with “extracted first image features” and
that Chang teaches an image template compared against a subsequently-
acquired image for determining the appropriate slice of data from the 3-D
volume set—these limitations corresponding to the claim terms “reference
system corresponding to the 3D volume data set” and “corresponding second
image features in said reference system.”
Appellant contends that, because Chang is cited by the Examiner for
the purpose of setting the slice position of a subsequent image (as opposed to
determining a slice view from an already acquired volume data set), Chang
teaches the use of the initially-acquired localizer image. App. Br. 6. It is
therefore mandatory, argues Appellant, that the slice positioning of the 3-D
volume set should not be applied to the first image (i.e., the localizer image),
Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993

6
otherwise there would be no point to even acquiring this localizer image. Id.
at 6–7. Consequently, Appellant contends that the Examiner rejected the
claims based solely upon a conclusion that a particular result would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, but did not properly set forth the
underlying reasoning by which a person of ordinary skill in the art would so
conclude.2 Id. at 8.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant does not contest that Nambu
teaches a method for extracting slice information from a 3-D volume data
set. Appellant’s objection to the Examiner’s rejection, rather, is that
whereas Nambu teaches a method for acquiring slice data, the localization
method taught by Chang is for use only with subsequently-acquired slice
data.
However, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981).

2Appellant also argues that if the 3-D volume data set disclosed in Nambu
were substituted, for example, for the localizer image disclosed in Chang,
Chang’s procedure would be rendered redundant, because the entire purpose
of Chang’s procedure is to designate the appropriate slice positioning for
obtaining a diagnostic image data set. App. Br. 5. However, this contention
does not reflect the conclusion of the Examiner, who applies “the reference
of Chang for the claimed feature of ‘automatically electronically
determining an interdependency’” and combines Chang’s teaching with
Nambu. See Ans. 13.

Appeal 2012-003685
Application 11/688,993

7
In this instance, Chang teaches the acquisition and characterization of
discrete anatomical reference points in a low resolution image to create a
template against which future samples can be compared. Chang, Abstract.
The language of claim 1 does not preclude determining an interdependency
between a previously acquired reference system and a subsequently acquired
3-D volume data set, as Appellant argues. Indeed, the language of claim 1
requires no specific temporal sequence for acquiring reference and sample 3-
D volume data set. Consequently, the Examiner finds Chang teaches the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “determining an interdependency between said
3D volume data set of the subject and a reference system corresponding to
the 3D volume data set, by setting the extracted first image features in
relation to corresponding second image features in said reference system.”
Ans. 13.
Moreover, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that a person of ordinary
skill would be motivated to use the technique disclosed in Chang to modify
the extraction method of Nambu to extract slices at more accurate and
precise locations from the 3D volume data set. Id. at 19. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

bar