Ex Parte Kaus et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 201411573290 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL KAUS, TODD R. MCNUTT, VLADIMIR PEKAR, and MATTHIAS MEYER Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before STEVEN D. A. MCCARTHY, ANDREW J. DILLON, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to an image segmentation method that segments a plurality of image features in an image. The plurality of image features are segmented non-simultaneously in succession. The segmenting of each image feature includes adapting an initial mesh to Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 2 boundaries of the image feature. The segmenting of each image feature further includes preventing the adapted mesh from overlapping any previously adapted mesh. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An image segmentation method for segmenting a plurality of image features in an image, the segmentation method comprising: segmenting the plurality of image features non-simultaneously in succession, the segmenting of each image feature including adapting an initial mesh to boundaries of the image feature, the segmenting of each image feature further including preventing the adapted mesh from overlapping any previously adapted mesh. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Sivaramakrishna US 2004/0101184 A1 May 27, 2004 Pitiot et al, Expert Knowledge Guided Segmentation System for Brain MRI, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2003, 2879 Lecture Notes in Computer Sci. 644-52 (“Pitiot”) Timinger et al, Integration of Interactive Corrections to Model-Based Segmentation Algorithm, Bildverarbeitung fuer die Medizin 2003, pp. 171- 75 (“Timinger”) THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as anticipated by Pitiot. Ans. 5-6.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 9, 2011; the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 18, 2012; and, the Reply Brief filed March 14, 2012. Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 3 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Pitiot and Timinger. Ans. 6-8. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 11, 13, 15, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Pitiot and Sivaramakrishna. Ans. 8-12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 8-16) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3-15) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Rej. 2- 11), and (2) the reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 5-12). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as anticipated by Pitiot. Specifically, Appellants urge that Pitiot fails to show segmenting the “plurality of image features in an image non-simultaneously in succession,” arguing that Pitiot describes, at page 649, the ventricles are segmented first, and then the caudate nuclei and corpus callosum are segmented, without addressing whether or not the caudate nuclei and corpus callosum are segmented simultaneously or non- simultaneously. Appeal Br. 8-9. In response, the Examiner points out that Pitiot discloses that the ventricles are segmented first, followed by segmenting, either simultaneously or non-simultaneously, the caudate nuclei and corpus callosum. Consequently, the Examiner finds, in view of the broad terminology of claim 1, the segmenting of the ventricles non-simultaneously Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 4 with the segmenting of either the caudate nuclei, the corpus callosum, or both, meets the language of claim 1. Ans. 13-14. In response to the Examiner’s explanation, Appellants withdrew their argument regarding the alleged failure of Pitiot to disclose segmenting a plurality of features “non-simultaneously in succession.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue error on the part of the Examiner based upon the failure of the Pitiot reference to disclose “the segmenting of each image feature further including preventing the adapted mesh from overlapping any previously adapted mesh” as recited in claim 1. The basis for Appellants’ arguments is the distance constraints (non-intersection conditions) utilized to prevent intersections between the caudate nuclei and the corpus callosum, as described in “rule b” of Pitiot, are not expressly described as applicable to prevent overlaps between the caudate nuclei and the corpus callosum and the previously segmented ventricles. Appeal Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 4-8. The Examiner finds the Appellants’ interpretation of the Pitiot “distance constraints” to be overly narrow. The Examiner notes that Pitiot describes the “distance constraints” on page 649 as utilized “to express distance and positional relationships between structures.” Consequently, the Examiner finds that “distance constraints” are utilized to create non- intersection conditions between structures that may include the ventricles as well as the caudate nuclei and corpus callosum. We agree with the Examiner. A fair reading of Pitiot leads us to the conclusion that the distance constraints are utilized to prevent intersections between all types of structures. We therefore find that Pitiot fairly describes the claimed feature of “the segmenting of each image feature further including preventing the adapted mesh from overlapping any previously adapted mesh” as set forth in claim 1. Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 5 Accordingly, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, and claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, which were not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as anticipated by Pitiot. With regard to claim 6, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by proposing the combination of Pitiot and Sivaramakrishna without articulating how Pitiot is proposed to be modified to incorporate the binary mask teaching of Sivaramakrishna, beyond expressing that both references are directed to medical imaging segmentation. Appellants urge that as Sivaramakrishna utilizes binary masks, and Pitiot utilizes meshes having a set of vertices, a skilled artisan would not have chosen to discard the mesh/vertices distance constraints of Pitiot in favor of the binary masks of Sivaramakrishna. Appeal Br. 12-15. The Examiner notes that Appellants do not appear to dispute that Sivaramakrishna teaches the claimed features of claim 6, but merely argues that there is “no reasonable way” to combine the references. In response the Examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Sivaramakrishna teaches the use of binary masks to prevent, detect, or resolve overlap situations during segmentation. Consequently, the Examiner finds there would have had reason to consider utilizing binary masks to assist in creating good segmentation. Ans. 20-21. We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. "[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 Fed. Cir. 1983 (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968)); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 6 structures."). "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . 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 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Here, the Examiner does not propose that the binary masks of Sivaramakrishna be physically incorporated into the structure of Pitiot. Instead, he/she concludes that the combined teachings of the references would have suggested the use of binary masks to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Appellants’ invention. The Appellants' argument overlooks "the relevant combined teachings of the . . . references." Andersen, 391 F.2d at 958 (dismissing the argument that a combination would result in an inoperative structure). We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 6, and claims 11, 13, 15, and 25, which were not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Pitiot and Sivaramakrishna. Finally, with respect to claims 2 and 3, Appellants simply argue that the citation of Timinger fails to remedy the deficiencies argued above with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. For the reasons we set forth above we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Pitiot and Timinger. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 25 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-006464 Application 11/573,290 7 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 Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation