Ex Parte Hale et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

11049003 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111049,003 02/01/2005
131672 7590 08/29/2016
Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Lawrence Hale
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.
02580-P0256B 7270
EXAMINER
NEWTON, ALEXANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3779
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC LAWRENCE HALE, NATHAN JON SCHARA,
and HANS DAVID HOEG
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eric Lawrence Hale et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18, 21-29, 38, and
39, which are all of the pending claims. We heard oral argument on August
11, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Karl Storz Imaging, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 18, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
18. A method for representing an endoscopic view and
viewing direction, the method comprising:
acquiring images with an endoscope having a distal end
and a view vector that pivots relative to the distal end, the view
vector having an attendant view cone that defines a current
image;
displaying the current image in a first section of a display;
sensing the attitude of the endoscope using sensors
attached to the endoscope;
displaying, in a second section of the display different
from the first section of the display and simultaneously with the
current image, a virtual representation of an endoscopic
environment comprising a graphical representation of the
endoscope, a texture mapped version of the current image
defined by the view cone, and a graphical representation of a
navigation coordinate system in which said graphical
representation of the endoscope and texture mapped image are
arranged in positions based on the attitude of the endoscope;
updating the texture mapped image as the view cone
moves through a solid angle as the view vector pivots; and
updating the positions of the updated texture mapped
image and the graphical representation of the endoscope within
the graphical representation of the navigation coordinate system
as the view cone moves through a solid angle as the view vector
pivots.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 18, 22, 23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen (US 2003/0018235 Al, published Jan.
23, 2003) and Hoeg (US 6,371,909 Bl, issued Apr. 16, 2002).
2
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
IL Claims 21, 24, 25 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen, Hoeg, and Fukunaga (US 6,346,940 B 1, issued
Feb. 12, 2002).
III. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chen, Hoeg, and Shahidi (US 2001/0029333 Al, published Oct. 11,
2001).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 18 calls for "displaying the current image in a first section of a
display" and
displaying, in a second section of the display different from the
first section of the display and simultaneously with the current
image, a virtual representation of an endoscopic environment
comprising a graphical representation of the endoscope, a texture
mapped version of the current image defined by the view cone,
and a graphical representation of a navigation coordinate
system in which said graphical representation of the endoscope
and texture mapped image are arranged in positions based on the
attitude of the endoscope.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App., emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Chen discloses all of these claim limitations.
Non-Final Act. 2-3. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Chen discloses
displaying a current image (i.e., "video image data 330 obtained from
endoscope 90") in a first section of a display, and displaying, in a second
section of the display different from the first section, simultaneously with
the current image, a graphical representation of the endoscope (i.e.,
"computer graphic representation 350 of the endoscope's shaft"), a texture
mapped version of the current image (i.e., "video image data 330 obtained
from endoscope 90"), and a graphical representation of a navigation
3
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
coordinate system (i.e., "markers 30E' and line segments 30F' ... used to
plan a surgical procedure"). Id. (citing Chen iii! 66, 75; Fig. 9)
Appellants contend that Chen, in contrast, "discloses an overlaid
presentation in a single display section." Appeal Br. 4. Appellants contend
that Chen provides "a single composite image combining both live video
images derived from endoscope 90 with computer generated images derived
from the computer graphics system." Id. at 5 (citing Chen, iJ 57).
Appellants also contend that Chen's Figures 5 and 9 show composite images
combining video image data and computer model image data. Id. (citing
Chen iii! 61, 66).
Figure 9 of Chen shows "a composite image 320 which combines
video image data 330 obtained from endoscope 90 with computer model
image data 340 generated by the system's computer graphics, and further
wherein a computer graphic representation 350 of the endoscope's shaft
appears on the rendered image." Chen iJ 66; Fig. 9. Figure 5 of Chen
similarly "shows a composite image 200 which combines video image data
210 obtained from endoscope 90 with computer model image data 220
generated by the system's computer graphics." Id. iJ 61; Fig. 5.
In response to Appellants' contentions, the Examiner finds that, in
both Figures 5 and 9 of Chen:
there is a middle first section in which live video data is provided
("21 O" and "330"), and an outer second section in which
computer models of environmental objects (anatomy "220" and
"340", endoscope "350") are provided in their proper positional
context. The sections are separated by a ring-shaped boundary
that represents the outer limit of obtained live video data, beyond
which no data is being obtained. Computer model data is used
to fill in the area beyond the ring-shaped boundary to provide the
operator with context.
4
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
Ans. 13 (emphasis added).
Appellants do not provide a definition of the claim term "section," or
otherwise direct us to any disclosure in their Specification, that precludes the
Examiner from reading "a first section of a display" and "a second section of
the display" in claim 18 on the identified "middle first section" and "outer
second section" in Figures 5 and 9 of Chen. Appellants acknowledge that
Chen displays the video image data in a circular region in the center of the
display. Reply Br. 2.
In Figure 9 of Chen, the computer graphic representation 350 of the
endoscope shaft appears to be visible in both the "middle first section" and
the "outer second section" of the display identified by the Examiner. The
Examiner states, however, that "the claim as drafted does not require that the
first section display image data alone and to the exclusion of model data."
Ans. 14. We agree and note that claim 18 does not recite displaying the
graphical representation of the endoscope, the texture mapped version of the
current image, or the graphical representation of a navigation coordinate
system only in the second section of the display. Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred in finding that Chen also discloses displaying, in a
second section of the display different from the first section, simultaneously
with the current image, a graphical representation of the endoscope.
However, the Examiner appears to find that "video image data 330
obtained from endoscope 90" disclosed in Chen corresponds to both "the
current image" and "a texture mapped version of the current image defined
by the view cone" recited in claim 18. Non-Final Act. 3. A definition of
"display" is "la: to put or spread before the view<~ the flag>." Merriam-
Webster 's Collegiate® Dictionary 361 (11th ed. 2003). The Examiner does
5
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
not explain adequately how, or where, Chen's video image data 330 is also
"displayed" in the "outer second section" of Chen's composite image 320 in
Figure 9, as video image data 330 appears to be placed before the view only
in the "middle first section."
Even if Chen's video image 330 can be considered to meet both claim
limitations, Appellants also point out that Chen does not support other
findings made by the Examiner. Particularly, Appellants contend that Chen
does not disclose displaying "a graphical representation of a navigation
coordinate system in conjunction with a graphical representation of the
endoscope and a texture mapped version of the current image." Appeal Br.
6-7. Appellants contend that Chen fails to disclose that markers 30E' and
line segments 30F' are displayed simultaneously with the current image. Id.
at 7.
In response, the Examiner states that Chen's "software objects" 30A',
30B', and 30C' are "the building blocks of the aforementioned 'computer
model image data 220' and 'computer model image data 340' ... [which
are] displayed separately and simultaneously from live video images '210'
and '330'."' Ans. 15.
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. Claim 18 requires displaying
the graphical representation of a navigation coordinate system in the second
section of the display with a virtual representation of an endoscope and a
texture mapped version of the current image. Claim 18 also requires "said
graphical representation of the endoscope and texture mapped image [to be]
arranged in positions based on the attitude of the endoscope." We note that
Figure 4B of Appellants' Specification illustrates navigation coordinate
system 48 in which are arranged a virtual representation of an endoscope 50
6
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
and a texture mapped version 60 of the current image. See Spec. ii 20.
Navigation coordinate system 48 is placed before the view in Figure 4B,
consistent with the noted definition of "display."
Appellants point out that Figures 5 and 9 of Chen do not show a
separate display of a navigation coordinate system. Appeal Br. 7.
Chen discloses that "markers 30E' and line segments 30F' may be used to
plan a surgical procedure, to determine anatomical lengths or angles, etc."
Chen ii 7 5. The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Chen
pertaining to using markers 30E' and line segments 30F' to form a graphical
representation of a navigation coordinate system in composite image 220 or
320 image shown in Figures 5 and 9, respectively, much less where "said
graphical representation of the endoscope and texture mapped image are
arranged in positions based on the attitude of the endoscope," as recited in
claim 18.
The Examiner applies Hoeg to the limitation in claim 18 of "the
texture mapped image or its position are updated when the view vector pivots
(emphasis added)." Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that "Hoeg
merely discloses a graphical representation of the viewing angle of the view
vector ( '46' as noted above) relative to the longitudinal axis of the
endoscope." Id.
We agree with Appellants that this finding for Hoeg does not cure the
deficiencies of Chen as to claim 18. Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 18 and dependent claims 22, 23, and 26-29 as
unpatentable over Chen and Hoeg.
7
Appeal2014-003877
Application 11/049,003
Rejection II
The Examiner's application of Fukunaga to dependent claims 21, 24,
25 and 38 does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 18. See
Non-Final Act. 7-9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
21, 24, 25 and 38 as unpatentable over Chen, Hoeg, and Fukunaga.
Rejection III
The Examiner's application of Shahidi to dependent claim 39 does not
cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 18. See Non-Final Act. 9-10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 39 as unpatentable
over Chen, Hoeg, and Shahidi.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18, 21-29, 38,
and 39.
REVERSED
8