Ex Parte Holthuizen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

14114997 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/114,997 10/31/2013 Ronaldus Frederik Johannes Holthuizen
24737 7590 01/22/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00655WOUS 1767
EXAMINER
BADER, ROBERT N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RON ALDUS FREDERIK JOHANNES HOL THUIZEN and
JOHAN MICHIEL DEN HARDER
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-3 and 6-17, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to "a
medical image system for, and a method of[,] displaying a set of views of
three-dimensional (3D) image data." Spec. 1:2-3.2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below ( with the disputed
limitations emphasized in italics):
1. A medical image system for enabling a user to navigate
through a three-dimensional (3D) image of an anatomical
structure, the system comprising:
a display configured to simultaneously display a set of
three views of the 3D image defined by an associated set of
three respective mutually orthogonal planes intersecting the 3D
image wherein each view is associated with one of the three
mutually orthogonal planes and displays the other two planes of
the three mutually orthogonal planes as lines while the
associated mutually orthogonal plane is not shown; and
a computer programmed to:
obtain a further set of three respective mutually
orthogonal planes intersecting the 3D image corresponding to a
spatial configuration indicated in a navigation command
performed in one view of the three views and comprising
dragging a line representing one of the two mutually orthogonal
planes represented as a line to input a rotation of the plane
represented by the dragged line around an intersection point
between the plane represented by the dragged line and the other
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Dec. 23, 2016 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed May 23, 2017 ("App. Br.") and Reply
Brief filed Nov. 28, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct.
5, 2017 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed Oct. 31, 2013
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
plane of the two mutually orthogonal planes represented by a
line; and
derive a further set of three view of the 3D image
defined by the further set of three respective mutually
orthogonal planes by:
(i) determining a spatial difference between
a first plane of the further set of three mutually orthogonal
planes associated with a first view of the further set of three
views and a reference plane of a reference view defined by the
reference plane and having a reference anatomical orientation
of the anatomical structure,
(ii) adjusting a rotation of the first view in
the first plane of the further set of three mutually orthogonal
planes in dependence on the spatial difference for more closely
aligning an anatomical orientation of the anatomical structure
in the first view of the further set of three views to the reference
anatomical orientation in the reference view; and
(iii) adjusting the second view and the third
view of the further set of three views in dependence on the
adjusted rotation of the first view of the further set of three
views.
App. Br. 17-18 (Claims App'x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over "Interactive Multidimensional Display
of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data" by Derek Ney et al. ("Ney"), Yanof
et al. (US 5,734,384; issued Mar. 31, 1998) ("Yanof'), and
Bailey et al. (US 7,061,484 B2; issued June 13, 2006) ("Bailey").
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ney, Yanof, Bailey, and Stefani et al. (US 2005/0113664
Al; published May 26, 2005) ("Stefani").
3
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ney, Yanof, Bailey, and "Image-Based Visual Hulls" by
Wojciech Matusik et al. ("Matusik").
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ney and Bailey.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issues3 raised by Appellants' arguments are whether
the combination of Ney, Yanof, and Bailey teaches or suggests
(i) determining a spatial difference between a first plane of the
further set of three mutually orthogonal planes associated with a
first view of the further set of three views and a reference plane
of a reference view defined by the reference plane and having a
reference anatomical orientation of the anatomical structure,
(ii) adjusting a rotation of the first view in the first plane of the
further set of three mutually orthogonal planes in dependence on
the spatial difference for more closely aligning an anatomical
orientation of the anatomical structure in the first view of the
further set of three views to the reference anatomical orientation
in the reference view
as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claim 13.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Ney and Y anof discloses
"displaying three mutually orthogonal slices, but do[ es] not address rotation
of the image within the plane to align the image to a reference view
orientation." Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that Bailey teaches "it is
advantageous to 'limit the effect of rotation by orienting the curved
3 Although Appellants' arguments in the Briefs raise other issues, we do not
address them because our decision of these issues is dispositive.
4
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
MPR image in the orientation most appropriate for the standard orthogonal
MPR closest to itself' because "clinical orientations can be used at all times,
which avoids confusion for users such as radiologists." Id. at 2-3 (citing
Bailey 16:65-17:2). The Examiner also finds that the term "closer" is
defined as "being in proximity in space or time," so the term "closest" would
be interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art to "correspond to the
most proximate in space ( or time)." Id. at 4 ( citing
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/closest (definition accessed 9/29/17)).
Thus, the Examiner further finds that Bailey's use of the term "closest"
requires the determination of a minimum spatial difference. Id. Regarding
the adjusting limitations of claim 1, the Examiner finds they are taught by
the modification of Ney in view of Bailey, rather than Bailey alone:
That is, Ney and Yanof disclose displaying three mutually
orthogonal slices, but do not address rotation of the image within
the plane to align the image to a reference view orientation, and
the mapping finds it would have been obvious to modify Ney's
system to incorporate the oblique view orientation rotation
taught by Bailey, col 16, line 65 - col 17, line 12, lines 34-56, i.e.
the full citation, describes snapping the displayed MPR image to
the reference orientation "closest to itself', and giving additional
examples with respect to an underlying flat MPR ( which is
analogous to Ney's oblique slice) being rotated to its closest
standard reference orientation. The rejection explicitly states
(pages 9-11) that Bailey teaches that in order to assist the user in
interpreting the images, the image should be rotated and/ or
mirrored to correspond to the reference view orientation.
Id. at 5.
5
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
Regarding Appellants' argument that the examiner has provided no
affirmative evidence for inherency, the Examiner finds as follows:
While the examiner has conceded that Bailey does not disclose
the means of determining which reference orientation is the
"closest", the examiner has repeatedly noted that Bailey uses the
result of determining which reference orientation is the
"closest", making it inherent that Bailey determines which
reference orientation has the minimum spatial difference, i.e. is
the "closest", in order to select it as the reference orientation for
display. Rather than address the basis of inherency put forth by
the examiner, based on full citation of Bailey describing
determining the "closest" reference view orientation, col 16, line
65 - col 17, lines 12, 34-56, Appellant's remarks attack a
strawman argument, asserting that Bailey "might" use other
means, without explaining how such an interpretation of Bailey
is consistent with Bailey's description of determining a "closest"
reference view orientation to the MPR image.
Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided "a basis in fact
and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the
applied prior art." App. Br. 10 (citing MPEP § 2112(IV)); see also Reply
Br. 4. Appellants also argue there are numerous ways by which Bailey may
identify the standard orthogonal MPR (multi-planar reformatting) that is
closest to the curved MPR image that do not require determining a spatial
difference between the curved and the standard orthogonal MPR views.
Reply Br. 4---6; App. Br. 10-11.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
The Federal Circuit has explained that the concept of inherency in the
patentability analysis was originally rooted in anticipation and "must be
6
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
limited when applied to obviousness." PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms.,
Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Honeywell Int'! Inc. v.
Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C. V., 865 F.3d 1348, 1354--55 (Fed.
Cir. 201 7) ( cautioning that "the use of inherency in the context of
obviousness must be carefully circumscribed."). The Federal Circuit has
further explained that:
A party must . . . meet a high standard in order to rely on
inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the
prior art in an obviousness analysis-the limitation at issue must
necessarily be present, or the natural result of the combination of
elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.
PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195-96. Thus, inherency "may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities." Id. at 1195 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578,581 (CCPA 1981)). "'The mere fact that a certain thing may
result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient' to render the result
inherent." Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581).
As Appellants argue, they noted in the Appeal Brief two ways by
which Bailey may identify the standard orthogonal MPR that is closest to the
curved MPR image that do not require determining a spatial difference
between the curved MPR view and the standard orthogonal MPR view.
Reply Br. 4--5; see also App. Br. 10-11. In the Reply Brief, Appellants note
that column 9, lines 37-55, of Bailey disclose that "the standard MPR plane
to which the curved MPR view is 'most similar' (which can be reasonably
understood as 'closest') is the standard MPR plane which is 'curved' to
generate the curved MPR view," which again does not require determining a
7
Appeal2018-001507
Application 14/114,997
spatial difference between the standard MPR and the curved MPR view.
Reply Br. 6.
Thus, applying the Federal Circuit's guidance on inherency here, we
determine the Examiner has not shown that "determining a spatial difference
between a first plane and a reference plane" is "necessarily present" or "the
natural result flowing from" the disclosure of Bailey cited by the Examiner
(Bailey, col 16, line 65 - col 17, line 12, lines 34--56). See PAR Pharm., 773
F.3d at 1195 (internal citation omitted). As Appellants also argue, and we
agree, because Bailey does not fairly teach or suggest determining a spatial
difference between a first plane of the further set of planes and a selected
reference plane, the combination of Bailey, Ney, and Yanof cannot disclose
"adjusting a rotation" of the first view in the first plane of the further set of
planes "in dependence on the spatial difference." App. Br. 7-8.
Therefore, on this record, we determine that a preponderance of the
evidence does not support the Examiner's underlying factual findings and
legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the disputed limitations of claim
1, which are recited in similar, commensurate form in independent claim 13.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 13,
and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-12, and 14--17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-17 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8