Ex Parte Koehler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

12673779 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/673,779 02/17/2010 Thomas Koehler 2007P01184WOUS 1242
38107 7590 02/27/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue SOREY, ROBERT A
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti.demichele@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS KOEHLER, HOLGER SCHMITT,
and HEINRICH SCHULZ
Appeal 2014-0099121
Application 12/673,7792
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
June 30, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 23, 2014), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 1, 2014) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 27, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-009912
Application 12/673,779
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—3, 6—17, 19, and 21—24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “model-based segmentation
systems, particularly involving adaptive subject imaging” (Spec. 1,11. 2—3).
Claims 1, 11, 22, 23, and 24 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for image segmentation in the presence of
metal artifacts, including:
a model generator that receives patient image data and
stores trained models of anatomical structures;
a voxel analyzer that determines whether metal artifacts
are present in one or more voxels in the patient image data;
a processor that executes a metal artifact reduction
algorithm and generates an uncertainty map with corrected voxel
data incorporated therein for a patient image generated from the
patient image data, wherein the uncertainty map indicates a
likelihood of metal contamination for corrected voxels
representing boundary surfaces of one or more remote organs in
other parts of the patient image; and
a segmentation tool that:
conforms a trained model of an anatomical structure
corresponding to the patient image;
segments the patient image using a model-based
segmentation technique; and
evaluates the uncertainty map derived by the
processor;
2
Appeal 2014-009912
Application 12/673,779
wherein the segmentation tool applies an internal
force along a surface normal vector in a surface region in
which the feature is located; and
wherein the segmentation tool applies an external
force along the vector; and
wherein the internal force increases and the external
force decreases as a function of an increase in the
likelihood of metal contamination associated with each
corrected voxel.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 6—17, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Spies (US 2008/0253635 Al, pub. Oct. 16,
2008), Luo (US 6,631,212 Bl, iss. Oct. 7, 2003), and Jurgen Weese et al.,
Shape Constrained Deformable Models for 3D Medical Image
Segmentation, 2082 Lecture Notes On Computer Science 380 (2001)
(hereinafter “Weese”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Spies and Weese.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 3 and 6 10
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) at least because none of the cited
references, individually or in combination, discloses or suggests “a processor
that. . . generates an uncertainty map with corrected voxel data . . . wherein
the uncertainty map indicates a likelihood of metal contamination for
corrected voxels representing boundary surfaces of one or more remote
organs in . . . the patient image,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8—9).
3
Appeal 2014-009912
Application 12/673,779
The Examiner acknowledges that Spies fails to disclose the argued
limitation, and cites Luo to cure the deficiency of Spies (Final 4 (citing Luo,
Abstract; col. 2,11. 19—31 and 47—57; col. 2,1. 66-col. 3,1. 13; col. 8,11. 10-
39; col. 9,1. 54—col. 10,1. 9)). However, we find nothing in the cited portion
of Luo that discloses or suggests generating an uncertainty map that
indicates a likelihood of metal contamination for voxels representing
boundary surfaces of organs in a patient image, as called for in claim 1.
Luo is directed to a method for segmenting textures in an image, and
discloses that the method comprises a first process of identifying first
features in the image and preparing an uncertainty map of the first features;
the uncertainty map includes first confidence pixels and second confidence
pixels with the first confidence being higher than the second confidence
(see, e.g., Luo, Abstract; col. 2,11. 19—31 and 47—57; col. 2,1. 66—col. 3,
1. 13). Luo discloses that the method further comprises identifying second
features in the image, preparing a classifier based on the first confidence
pixels and the second features, and reclassifying the second confidence
pixels based on the classifier to segment the textures. But we fail to see
how, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how, the Luo disclosure
alone, or in combination with Spies, teaches or suggests “generat[ing] an
uncertainty map with corrected voxel data . . . wherein the uncertainty map
indicates a likelihood of metal contamination for corrected voxels
representing boundary surfaces of one or more remote organs in . . . the
patient image,” as recited in claim 1.
We also are persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’ argument
that none of the cited references discloses or suggests that “the segmentation
tool applies an internal force [and an external force] along a surface normal
4
Appeal 2014-009912
Application 12/673,779
vector in a surface region in which the feature is located . . . wherein the
internal force increases and the external force decreases as a function of an
increase in the likelihood of metal contamination associated with each
corrected voxel,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner cites Weese as disclosing the argued limitation (Final Act. 5
(citing Weese, sections 2.1—2.4)) and asserts that the limitation is met by
“weighting the relative influence of the internal energy term relative to the
external energy term, where weights are introduced to give the more
promising surface points a larger influence” (id.).
There is no dispute that Weese discloses that the internal energy is
weighted relative to the external force and that weights are introduced in
computing the external energy “to give the more promising service
points ... a larger influence during mesh configuration” (Weese,
section 2.2). But the Examiner does not adequately explain how, and we fail
to see how this discloses or suggests adjusting the applied internal and
external forces “as a function of an increase in the likelihood of metal
contamination associated with each corrected voxel,” as recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3 and 6—10.
Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonob vious”).
5
Appeal 2014-009912
Application 12/673,779
Independent Claims 11, 22, 23, and 24 and Dependent Claims 12—17, 19,
and 21
Independent claims 11, 22, 23, and 24 include language substantially
similar to the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 11, 22, 23, and
24, and claims 12—17, 19, and 21, which depend therefrom, for the same
reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 11—3, 6—17, 19, and 21—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6