Ex Parte Hawman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13155430 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/155,430 06/08/2011
28524 7590 10/04/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric G. Hawman
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.
2011Pl0447US 2993
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC G. HAWMAN and ROBERT KASPER 1
Appeal2015-006605
Application 13/155,430
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
T , 1 , • 1nrroaucnon
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1---6, 9--15, and 18. The Examiner has indicated that
claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations in the claims from which
they depend. Final Act. 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-006605
Application 13/155,430
Invention
Appellants disclose a system and method for "obtaining pointing
directions for every channel of a collimator which can then be used during
the image reconstruction process to more accurately estimate the direction
from which radiation has been received." Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim l, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for obtaining a channel orientation vector map of
a multi-channel collimator for a nuclear medicine imaging
system to correct for angular pointing errors in channels of said
multi-channel collimator, said multi-channel collimator having
a first side and a second side and a plurality of channels
extending there through, each of the plurality of channels
forming openings at the first side and the second side of the
collimator, said method comprising:
photographing a digital image of the first side of the
collimator and obtaining first image data representing the
positions of each channel opening on the first side of the
collimator;
photographing a digital image of the second side of the
collimator and obtaining second image data representing the
positions of each channel opening on the second side of the
collimator;
determining the relative positions of each channel
opening between the first side and the second side of the
collimator by correlating the first image data to the second
image data;
determining an orientation vector for each of the plurality
of channels using said relative positions; and
generating a channel orientation vector map of said
orientation vectors for use in image reconstruction m said
nuclear medicine imaging system.
2
Appeal2015-006605
Application 13/155,430
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guru et al. (US 6,175,615 Bl; issued
Jan. 16, 2001), Hawman (US 2007/0069136 Al; published Mar. 29, 2007),
and Montag et al. (US 2012/0165656 Al; published June 28, 2012). Final
Act. 2-8.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 15 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a) as
being unpatentable over Guru, Hawman, Montag, and Difilippo (US
7,635,847 B2; issued Dec. 22, 2009). Final Act. 8-9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guru, Hawman,
and Montag teaches or suggests "determining the relative positions of each
channel opening between the first side and the second side of the collimator
by correlating the first image data to the second image data," as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Guru's use of computer-
aided design (CAD) software to generate a drawing of a two-dimensional
collimator teaches or suggests determining the relative positions of each
channel opening between the first side and the second side of the collimator.
Final Act. 2 (citing Guru col. 4, 11. 48-53, 57----65, and col. 5, 11. 21-28); see
also Ans. 15-17. The Examiner relies on Montag' s use of cameras to
ascertain the locations and orientations of a fluoroscope (based on fiducial
marks affixed thereto) to teach or suggest the determining being by
correlating the first image data to the second image data. Final Act. 4
3
Appeal2015-006605
Application 13/155,430
(citing Montag ilil 106, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, and Fig. 5); see also Ans.
16, 18.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Guru is merely
"directed to improving the manufacturing process by varying the channel
positions and angles of channel orientation of a design for a collimator based
on a design distance of a radiation source from the collimator." App. Br. 8.
Appellants further argue "[t]he use of a camera in Montag has no relation or
relevance to the CAD design or STL [stereo-lithographic] files used to
manufacture a collimator in Guru." Id. at 14. Rather, Appellants argue,
"Montag teaches using cameras to image fiducial markers on a collimator to
determine the location and orientation of a fluoroscope with respect to a
location pad so that [the] perturbations in a magnetic field that cause
inaccuracy in measuring the location of a probe may be compensated for."
Reply Br. 5---6.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The claimed
"determining the relative positions of each channel opening" relates to
ascertaining the relative positions of channel openings by correlating image
data for a first side of a collimator and image data for a second side of a
collimator. However, Guru is directed to the design of a collimator, and
determining where the channel openings should go (see, e.g., Guru col. 5,
11. 21-28), rather than ascertaining where the channel openings actually are
after having been manufactured, as required by claim 1. Moreover, Montag
merely identifies orientations and locations of a fluoroscope, rather than
correlating image data for first and second sides of a collimator. See, e.g.,
Montag i-f 111, Fig. 5. The Examiner's findings do not show that Montag
teaches or suggests modifying Guru to use image data to ascertain where
4
Appeal2015-006605
Application 13/155,430
channel openings are positioned relative to each other. The Examiner also
does not show that Hawman cures this deficiency. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Guru,
Hawman, and Montag teaches or suggests "determining the relative
positions of each channel opening between the first side and the second side
of the collimator by correlating the first image data to the second image
data," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 9-14, and 18, which contain the same
or similar limitation and are similarly rejected. The Examiner's findings
also do not show that DiFilippo cures the noted deficiency of Guru,
Hawman, and Montag. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 9-15, and
18.
REVERSED
5