Ex Parte Jacob et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201310518845 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARIE JACOB, OLIVIER GERARD, and ANTOINE COLLET-BILLON1 ____________ Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JAMES B. ARPIN, and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-21. Claim 13 is cancelled. Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the real party in interest. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed November 16, 2009; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed February 3, 2010. Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 2 INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to information processing systems, methods, and computer readable media for displaying information relating to parietal motions of a deformable, 3-D object under study. See generally Spec. 1:1-7. In particular, the invention relates to such systems, methods, and media for displaying information relating to body organ wall motions, for example, motions of the heart, that occur during an image sequence, together with indications of the instant during the sequence at which such motions occur. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An image processing system for displaying information relating to the amplitude of displacements of wall regions of a deformable 3D object under study, the system comprising: acquisition means for acquiring image data of an image sequence of the 3D object under study; processing means for: processing the 3D object data in the images of the sequence for locating the 3D object wall, defining regions of interest on the 3D object wall, and processing the image data of the 3D object wall to determine the amplitude of displacement of each of said regions of interest as a function of time; and constructing a first 2D simplified representation of the 3D object wall by projection of the 3D object wall along an axis, comprising the projections of the regions of interest in said 2D simplified representation; and display means for displaying indications of the amplitudes of displacement of each of the regions of interest of the 3D object wall in the respective projections of said regions of interest, called segments, in said constructed 2D simplified representation. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Ryals Metaxas US 5,803,914 US 6,295,464 B1 Sep. 8, 1998 Sep. 25, 2001 Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3-4. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Metaxas and Ryals. Id. at 7-17. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Metaxas. Id. at 5-6. STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, the Examiner finds that these claims recite a method, but that the recited method is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Id. at 3-4. In response, Appellants argue that, as recited in the preamble to claim 11, the limitations of the claimed method are performed by an image processing system. Br. 7. Consequently, Appellants argue that the method of independent claim 11, as well as the process of each of claims 12, 14, and 15 dependent therefrom, is tied to a particular machine or apparatus. Id. Analysis “[T]he [U.S.] Supreme Court has made clear that a patent claim’s failure to satisfy the machine-or-transformation test is not dispositive of the § 101 inquiry.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010)). Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that the machine-or-transformation test is a “useful and important clue or investigative tool” for determining patent eligibility under § 101. Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3221. With respect to Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 4 independent claim 11, the Examiner finds that the recitation of an image processing system in the preamble does not tie the claimed method to a particular machine or apparatus, because the image processing system “could be a module/software program or performed manually.” Ans. 19. We do not agree. The body of claim 11 recites “displaying indications of the amplitudes of displacement of the regions of interest of the 3D segmented organ wall in the respective projections of the regions of interest, called segments, in said constructed 2D simplified representation, in a color coded manner” (emphasis added). In other words, the claimed method requires not only the manipulation of data but the display of determined amplitudes. We find that the display of such amplitudes requires that the method is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, and, thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that method claim 11 fails to recite statutory subject matter. Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of claim 11 and of claims 12, 14, and 15, which depend therefrom. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER METAXAS AND RYALS Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Metaxas discloses all of the claimed limitations (Ans. 7-8), except for “indications of the amplitudes of displacement of each of the regions of interest of the 3D object wall in the respective projections of said regions of interest, called segments, in said constructed 2D simplified representation” (id. at 8). The Examiner finds, however, that Ryals teaches this limitation and that it would have been obvious to modify Metaxas in view of Ryals to achieve the claimed invention. Id. at 8-9. Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 5 Appellants argue that Metaxas and Ryals fail to teach or suggest at least three of the limitations of claim 1. Br. 7-10. First, Appellants argue that Metaxas teaches or suggests defining regions of interest within a 3D wall, rather than “on the 3D object wall,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Id. at 9. Second, Appellants argue that Metaxas teaches or suggests identifying a change in displacement for the 3D object wall, rather than an “amplitude of displacement of each of the said regions of interest as a function of time.” Id. Third, Appellants argue that Metaxas fails to teach or suggest “constructing a first 2D simplified representation of the 3D object wall by projection of the 3D object wall along an axis, comprising the projections of the regions of interest in said 2D simplified representation,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 10. Further, Appellants argue that independent claim 11, as well as claims 2-10, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21, is distinguishable over Metaxas and Ryals because of the same alleged deficiencies as those argued with respect to claim 1. Id. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Metaxas and Ryals, collectively, teach or suggest: (1) “defining regions of interest on the 3D object wall,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)? (2) “processing the image data of the 3D object wall to determine the amplitude of displacement of each of said regions of interest as a function of time,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)? (3) “constructing a first 2D simplified representation of the 3D object wall by projection of the 3D object wall along an axis, Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 6 comprising the projections of the regions of interest in said 2D simplified representation,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. First, as noted above, Appellants argue that Metaxas and Ryals teach or suggest defining regions of interest within a 3D wall, rather than “on the 3D object wall,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue that, referring to Figure 4, Metaxas teaches prismatic volume elements 201-203, each having triangular faces 204, 205 between these elements. Id. (citing Metaxas, col. 9, ll. 44- 61). The Examiner finds, however, that Metaxas teaches that prismatic volume elements, such as elements 201-203, permit the walls of model 200 to be tessellated. Ans. 7, 19-20; see also Ans. 6 (referring to corresponding limitations of claims 16 and 19). A pertinent definition of the verb: tessellate is “to form of small squares or blocks, as floors or pavement; [to] form in a checkered or mosaic pattern.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1349 (2d. Random House ed. 1999). Thus, as depicted in Figure 4, Metaxas teaches or suggests that the wall may be divided, such that volume elements define a pattern of adjoining squares or surfaces. Further, the Examiner finds that volume elements 201-203 encompass not only their interior areas, but their exterior wall surfaces. Ans. 19-20. Even assuming that Metaxas’s regions of interest are represented by triangular regions 204, 205, we note that Figure 4 depicts that triangular regions 204, 205 extend to the wall surface and, consequently, we agree with the Examiner that “Metaxas’ reference meets the claim limitation since Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 7 defining a region of interest within a 3D object wall also embodies ‘on the 3D object wall.’” Id. at 20 (emphases added). Second, Appellants argue that Metaxas teaches or suggests identifying a change in displacement for the 3D object wall, rather than an “amplitude of displacement of each of the said regions of interest as a function of time.” Br. 9 (emphases omitted). In particular, Appellants argue that, referring to Figures 9a-c, Metaxas depicts a model at two time intervals, e.g., T and T+1. Id. Although Metaxas teaches an equation for calculating the displacement between the intervals, Appellants note that Metaxas does not mention determining “amplitude” for any calculated displacement. Id. (citing Metaxas, col. 9, l. 63–col. 10, l. 4). Referring to Figure 2, Appellants describe that a distance D may be defined between the boundaries of the first binary 3D object SO and the second 3D simplified volume RO. Spec. 7:11-12. This determination of distance D may be repeated for all the faces, or all the zones or for boundary voxels or for voxels of the wall parts to determine the amplitude of the displacement. Id. at 13-21. The Examiner finds, however, that, in Figures 9a-c, Metaxas depicts the motion of two model frames 300, 301 of the model body of the left vertical (LV) at the two subsequent time intervals, e.g., T and T+1. Ans. 20. The Examiner notes that the depictions teach that different portions of the LV model body contract by different amounts. Id. (citing Metaxas, col. 12, ll. 45-62). For example, in Figure 9b, Metaxas depicts that the apex may move less than other portions of the LV model body between time T and T+1. Id. Thus, referring to Figure 9b, the Examiner notes that Metaxas depicts a relatively uniform longitudinal contraction from the LV model Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 8 body apex to its base. Id.; see Metaxas, col. 12, ll. 56-58. We further note that, in Figure 9(b), Metaxas depicts arrows indicating opposing motion, both contraction and expansion, of the model body from a broken-line frame. Because of these differences in the amount of motion, e.g., contraction, depicted, the Examiner finds that Metaxas teaches the amplitude of displacement for the regions of interest, such as the apex, as a function of time. Ans. 20-21. Therefore, Appellants do not persuade us that the differences depicted between the model bodies in Figures 9a-c do not teach or suggest determining an amplitude of displacement of each of the regions of interest as a function of time. Third, Appellants argue that Metaxas fails to teach or suggest “constructing a first 2D simplified representation of the 3D object wall by projection of the 3D object wall along an axis, comprising the projections of the regions of interest in said 2D simplified representation.” Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue that Metaxas teaches using two sets of data to estimate 3D motion, long-axis data and short-axis data. Id. (citing Metaxas, col. 13, ll. 56-57). Initially, the Examiner finds that the long-axis views generally coincide with xy-plane 261. Thus, Metaxas depicts a two- dimensional representation of the 3D body along an axis, such as a long axis. Ans. 21; see also Metaxas, Figs. 8a-c (depicting views along alternative axes). Further, as noted above, the subsequent time instances, e.g., T and T+1, show the varying contraction distances of various portions, e.g., regions of interest, of the body. See also, e.g., Spec. 7:23-26 (describing amplitudes of maximal (or minimal) displacements); claim 2 (dependent from claim 1 and describing depicted amplitudes as maximal or minimal amplitudes of displacements). Although Appellants depict regions of Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 9 interest in a manner similar to that taught in the AHA Scientific Statement3 (Spec. 1:10-20; Figs 3B, 4B), Appellants explain that this manner of depiction is merely an example of the manner of depicting regions of interest (Spec. 7:27-31). Cf. Ryals, Figs. 13, 14 (identifying another manner of depicting regions of interest). Consequently, Appellants do not persuade us that Metaxas fails to teach or suggest this limitation of claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 11; and claims 2-10, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21, not separately argued with particularity. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims. ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER METAXAS We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 16 and 19 over Metaxas. Limitations of claims 16 and 19 correspond to those of claim 1. Br. 11. Although Appellants argue these claims separately, Appellants merely rely on the same arguments alleging deficiencies in Metaxas in connection with the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Id. For the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by these 3 Manuel D. Cerqueira, MD et al., Standardized Myocardial Segmentation and Nomenclature for Tomographic Imaging of the Heart, A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association, 105 CIRCULATION 539-42 (January 29, 2002) (identified in Information Disclosure Statements on December 21, 2004, and November 16, 2006, and acknowledged by the Examiner on November 26, 2007). Appeal 2010-007349 Application 10/518,845 10 arguments. Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 16 and 19.4 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-11, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under § 103(a) or claims 16 and 19 under § 102(b). The Examiner, however, erred in rejecting claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 under § 101. DECISION Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 14, and 16-21 and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc 4 We note that claim 19 refers to “the first 2D simplified representation” (emphasis added). Because independent claim 16 does not recite a first 2D simplified representation, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation, raising issues regarding this claim’s compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Similar issues regarding compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, exist within at least claim 1. If prosecution reopens, the Examiner should resolve these issues. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation