Ex Parte Matsumoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12834631 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/834,631 07/12/2010
116 7590 02/25/2016
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801EAST9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kazuhiko Matsumoto
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.
NGBl-50328 8829
EXAMINER
TSENG, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
patdocket@peame.com
jcholley@peame.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUHIKO MATSUMOTO
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY,
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-21. Claims 22-3 6 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application "relates generally to image visualization
techniques, and more particularly to the alignment of images rendered using
disparate image visualization techniques." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 8, and 15
are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for displaying volume data, comprising:
rendering, by at least one processing unit, at least a portion
of the volume data in accordance with a curved planar
reformation technique to generate a first image;
displaying, by a display device, the first image;
receiving an indication of an attention location and
surrounding first region having a first direction of display in the
first image;
rendering, by the at least one processing unit, at least a
portion of the volume data in accordance with a technique
distinct from the curved planar reformation technique to generate
a second image that includes the attention location and
surrounding second region having a second direction of display
aligned with the first direction of display of the attention location
and surrounding first region in the first image, the second
direction of display is determined based on the first direction of
display and the attention location, and the second image is
generated based on the determined second direction of display;
and
displaying, by the display device, the second image.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14--17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kohlmann et al., "Contextual Picking
of Volumetric Structures," IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (2009)
("Kohlmann"); and Kohlmann et al., "LiveSync: Deformed Viewing
2
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
Spheres for Knowledge-Based Navigation," 13 IEEE Transactions on
Visualization & Computer Graphics 1544 (2007) ("LiveSync").
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kohlmann, LiveSync, and Lee et al.,
"Tangential Curved Planar Reformation for Topological and Orientation
Invariant Visualization of Vascular Trees," Proceedings of the 28th IEEE
EMBS Annual Int'l Conference (2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 15 together. See App.
Br. 9-17. As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as
representative of this group and decide the appeal as to this rejection based
on claim 1 alone.
Appellant contends neither Kohlmann nor LiveSync teaches or
suggests "selecting an attention location, in a CPR-rendered image, with a
first direction of display and generating a second image, with another
rendering technique, that includes the attention location with a second
direction of display aligned with the first direction of display." App. Br. 13.
In particular, Appellant argues neither Kohlmann nor Live Sync "teach[ es] or
suggest[ s] a first direction of display of an attention location in a first image
rendered via a CPR [curved planar reformation] technique" because
Live Sync describes "typical 2D slices .... [that] have directions of display
perpendicular to the plane on which the image is contained" and Kohlmann
"fails to teach or suggest anything beyond determination of [a] curve based
on points selections in the volumetric view." Id. at 15-16.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive, as the arguments do not
adequately address the findings made by the Examiner. The Examiner
3
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
found LiveSync "discloses viewpoint selection where a user may pick a
structure of interest (attention location) with a (first) surrounding region at
an associated (first) viewing orientation (direction of display) in a 2D slice
view (first image)." Ans. 3--4 (citing LiveSync 1545, Fig. 1); see also Final
Act. 3--4. The Examiner concluded LiveSync's teachings, combined with
Kohlmann' s disclosure of generating 2D slice views using a CPR technique,
would have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of skill in the art.
Ans. 3--4; see also Final Act. 7-10. Appellant's assertions that LiveSync
discloses "typical 2D slices" and Kohlmann fails to teach anything other
than a CPR technique have not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
Appellant also contends neither Kohlmann nor LiveSync teaches or
suggests "a second direction of display of the attention location in a second
image rendered via another technique, wherein the second direction of
display is aligned with the first direction of display." App. Br. 16.
Appellant asserts the Examiner equated LiveSync's "viewing orientation"
with the claimed "first direction of display" and argues the "viewing
orientation appears to be a patient orientation during imaging ... not a
direction of display." Id. Moreover, Appellant contends "the viewpoint
selected for the volumetric view is not guaranteed to be aligned,
perpendicularly, to the coronal, axial, or sagittal planes" and therefore
LiveSync "fails to teach or suggest the second direction of display is aligned
with the first direction of display." Id.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found
LiveSync discloses "viewpoint and visibility data corresponding to a picked
structure of interest in a 2D slice view as a viewing orientation or direction
corresponding to a direction of display for displaying the picked structure of
4
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
interest in a 2D slice view." Ans. 5 (emphases added) (citing LiveSync
1545--46, Fig. 1). Thus, contrary to Appellant's suggestion, the Examiner
did not equate a patient's orientation to the claimed "first direction of
display" but instead found LiveSync discloses "viewpoint and visibility
data" that teaches this claim element.
As for Appellant's argument that "the viewpoint selected for the
volumetric view is not guaranteed to be aligned, perpendicularly, to the
coronal, axial, or sagittal planes," App. Br. 16, claim 1 does not require that
a viewpoint align in such a manner. Claim 1 merely requires "a second
direction of display aligned with the first direction of display of the attention
location and surrounding first region in the first image." App. Br. 19. The
cited portions of Live Sync disclose a workflow that generates a volumetric
or three-dimensional view that is "live-synchronized" to the selected portion
of a two-dimensional slice view. See Live Sync 1545--46, Abstract, Fig. 1;
see also Ans. 4--5. The Examiner found the "directions of display," that is,
the viewpoints of these synchronized images are "aligned" under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, see Ans. 5, and Appellant's
arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
Finally, Appellant substantively argues for the first time in their Reply
Brief that neither of the cited references teaches or suggests "the second
direction of display is determined based on the first direction of display."
Compare App. Br. 16-17, with Reply Br. 2--4. 1 Appellant has waived this
argument by failing to adequately present it in their Appeal Brief. See Ex
1 Appellant's Reply Brief lacks page numbers. We treat the Reply Brief as if
it were numbered starting with the page including the heading "Response to
Examiner's Arguments."
5
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but
were not.").
Regardless, we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. Appellant
argues "Live[S]ync does not discuss the relative view directions/orientations
of the 3D volumetric and 2D slice views" and therefore the Examiner's
statements concerning LiveSync's view directions and orientations are
"based solely on supposition." Reply Br. 2-3. However, the Examiner
found LiveSync "explains its viewpoint and visibility data of the 2D slice
view are collectively processed as view input parameters to generate derived
viewpoint parameters as an aligned viewing orientation or direction for the
3D volumetric view." Ans. 5. The cited portions of LiveSync provide
adequate support for this finding. See LiveSync 1545--46, Fig. 1.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us this finding is
erroneous.
Appellant also contends "LiveSync merely discloses a method for
associating 'picking of a location' with 'viewing of orientation or
direction,"' but "LiveSync clearly fails to disclose that the second direction
of display is determined based on the first direction of display and the
attention location" Reply Br. 3. Moreover, Appellant contends in LiveSync
"the direction of display is based on the picked structure and not on the first
direction of display, as required by claim 1." Id. But the cited portions of
LiveSync disclose using the selected point in a two-dimensional slice, the
zoom of slice, "rays ... cast from the picked point [in the slice] to a certain
number of viewpoints," and viewpoint history, among other things, to
6
Appeal2014-004035
Application 12/834,631
generate the synchronized three-dimensional view. See LiveSync 1545--46,
Fig. 1. We therefore find this argument unpersuasive.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claim 1,
8, and 15. Because Appellant has not presented persuasive patentability
arguments for claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7