Ex Parte Orderud

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13314599 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
13/314,599 12/08/2011 Fredrik Orderud 254827UL (553-1871) 5712
45436 7590 11/30/2016
DEAN D. SMALL
THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLC
225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
EXAMINER
KINNARD, LISA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
Docket @ splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDRIK ORDERUD
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
and a system for ultrasound imaging. The Examiner rejected the claims on
the ground of obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Statement of the Case
Background
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to an ultrasound imaging
system and method for displaying a volume-rendered image and a[] planar
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as General Electric Company
(see Br. 3).
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
image that are both colorized according to the same depth-dependent
scheme” (Spec. 11).
The Claims
Claims 1—20 are on appeal. Independent claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A method of ultrasound imaging comprising:
generating a volume-rendered image from three-
dimensional ultrasound data, wherein the volume-rendered
image is colorized with at least two colors according to a
depth-dependent color scheme;
displaying the volume-rendered image;
generating a planar image from the three-dimensional
ultrasound data, wherein the planar image is colorized
according to the same depth-dependent color scheme as the
volume-rendered image; and
displaying the planar image.
The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 9—15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Thiele2 and Washburn3 (Ans. 2—7).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, and 16—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Thiele, Washburn, and Henderson4 (Ans. 7—10).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Thiele and Washburn
The Examiner finds that Thiele teaches “generating a volume-
rendered image from three-dimensional ultrasound data, wherein the
volume-rendered image is colorized [paragraph [0001]] with at least two
2 Thiele, US 2009/0184955 Al, published July 23, 2009.
3 Washburn et al., US 2009/0097723 Al, published Apr. 16, 2009.
4 Henderson, US 2004/0109014 Al, published June 10, 2004.
2
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
colors according to a depth-dependent color scheme [paragraph [0018]],”
“displaying the volume-rendered image [paragraph [0016]],” and
“generating a planar image from the three-dimensional ultrasound data
[paragraph [0016]], wherein the planar image is colorized according to the
same depth dependent color scheme as the volume-rendered image
[paragraphs [0018] and [0019]]” (Ans. 2).
The Examiner acknowledges that “Thiele does not explicitly disclose
displaying the planar image” {id. at 3).
The Examiner turns to Washburn and finds that it teaches “displaying
the planar image [Figure 3 item 50]” {id.). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify Thiele in view of Washburn in
displaying the planar image in order to give context regarding the anatomical
location being viewed [Washburn, paragraph [0007]]” {id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Thiele and Washburn render
the claims prima facie obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Thiele teaches
a method for volume rendering using depth weighted
colorization according to one embodiment of the present
disclosure. The method of volume rendering comprises
obtaining data representative of a first composited plane of
one or more anatomical structures .... In one embodiment,
the first composited plane comprises an original composited
plane. In another embodiment, obtaining data comprises
obtaining data from a source using one selected from the
group consisting of three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound,
matrix arrays and real-time 3D imaging.
(Thiele 116; see also Ans. 2.)
3
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
2. Thiele teaches that
[t]he method further includes . . . selecting or interpolating
color values between two different colorization palettes as a
function of the RMS depths of the second composited plane.
In particular, the step includes determining depth weighted
color values between two different colorization palettes as a
function of the RMS depths of the second composited plane.
(Thiele 118; see also Ans. 2.)
3. Thiele teaches that “[t]he method still further includes
. . . applying the selected or interpolated color values to the original
composited plane for producing a volume rendering with depth weighted
colorization” (Thiele 119; see also Ans. 2).
4. Figure 4 of Washburn is reproduced below:
5$
Figure 4 shows “a front view 70 of a display” having an “ultrasound image
72” and a “pre-acquired image volume 74” (Washburn 142; see also Ans.
3).
4
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
Principles of Law
“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious.” KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Analysis
Claims 1—3, 6, 9—14, 19, and 20:
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 2—11; FF 1—6) and agree that claims
1,11, and 14 would have been obvious over Thiele and Washburn. We
address Appellant’s arguments below.
Appellant contends that “[t]he cited art fails to render obvious at least
‘generating a planar image from the three-dimensional ultrasound data,
wherein the planar image is colorized according to the same depth-
dependent color scheme as the volume-rendered image[]’” (Br. 9).
We are not persuaded.
Thiele teaches “a method for volume rendering using depth weighted
colorization” in which “obtaining data comprises obtaining data from a
source using one selected from the group consisting of three-dimensional
(3D) ultrasound, matrix arrays and real-time 3D imaging” (FF 1). Thiele
also teaches “determining depth weighted color values between two different
colorization palettes as a function of the RMS depths of the second
composited plane” (FF 2). Thiele further teaches “applying the selected or
interpolated color values to the original composited plane for producing a
volume rendering with depth weighted colorization” (FF 3).
5
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
We thus agree with the Examiner that
the term “generating an image” can be image interpolation,
image reconstruction or any process that takes place after the
raw data has been captured. In order to obtain 2D data from
3D data - a limitation disclosed in the claims - it would be
necessary to perform an image rendering task that occurs
after the raw data has been captured.
(Ans. 10.)
Appellant argues that
Thiele relates to “composite planes” that are a type of
volume rendering and not planar imaging. Thiele is directed
to a method for volume rendering that uses data from
composited planes. [] A composited plane, however, is not a
planar image. Thiele relates to Levoy compositing, which
involves integrating interpolated samples along a ray cast
line.
(Br. 9.)
These arguments are unpersuasive. Appellant’s claims do not define
“planar image” or “image of a plane” to exclude composite planes or Levoy
compositing. “[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See
also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[Appellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”).
Appellant argues that
[w]hile Washburn mentions ultrasound planar images, and
may be used to display a planar image, Washburn does not
teach displaying a planar image as fully set forth by Claim 1,
for example displaying both a planar image and a volume-
6
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
rendered image both generated from common dataset (“the
three-dimensional ultrasound data”).
(Br. 11.) Appellant also argues that “[a]s Washburn is directed to display of
images from data acquired at different times (e.g., one is ‘pre-acquired’) for
registration, Washburn does not teach display of a planar image and a
volume-rendered image that were acquired from the same imaging data” {id.
at 12).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner turns to Washburn for its
teaching of “displaying the planar image [Figure 3 item 50]” (Ans. 3, FF 4).
Applicant’s contention fails to account for Thiel’s teaching in the
combination of Thiel and Washburn. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references []. [The reference] must
be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with
the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Claim 4:
Appellant similarly contends that “the displayed items of Washburn
are not acquired from the same data (‘the three-dimensional ultrasound
data’) and do not teach the display as fully set forth” (Br. 13).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.
Claims 5 and 15:
Appellant argues that “[i]n Washburn, there is no mention of a ‘view
port[]’” (Br. 14).
7
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
This argument is unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains,
the term “view port” is not one which is commonly used in
the art and that [Appellant] has not defined this term in the
specification, but rather shows it in the drawings as a
window (Drawings, Figure 3, item 309). The examiner
further submits that Washburn cites “a portion of the
display” in paragraph [0007], which has been interpreted as
a window.
(Ans. 11; see also FF 4.) “[C]laims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Thiele, Washburn, and Henderson
The Examiner acknowledges that “Thiele in view of Washburn
discloses [Appellant’s] claimed system, but does not explicitly disclose
details regarding adjusting view ports” (Ans. 7).
The Examiner turns to Henderson and finds that it “discloses adjusting
the shape of a window through a user interface [paragraph [0013]]” (id. ).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify Thiele in view of Washburn, and further in view
of Henderson in adjusting the shape of a window, because a
window and view port perform the same function. Further it
would have been obvious to adjust the shape of the view
port in order to concentrate on a particular Region of Interest
(ROI).
(Id. at 7—8.)
8
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Thiele, Washburn, and
Henderson render the claims prima facie obvious?
Findings of Fact
5. Henderson teaches “[a] region window is set on the user
interface corresponding to the foreground region. Then a portion of the
video frame corresponding to the region window is displayed on the user
interface” (Henderson 114; see also Ans. 8).
6. Henderson teaches
Associated with the graphical content, a real-time, or near-
real time video image of an object or actor may be also be
sent in a streaming video signal to elaborate and explain
what is presented in the graphical content. Superimposing
only the foreground portion of the video image allows for
the video to avoid obliterating underlying graphical
information. Moreover, allowing the video to seemingly
move independent of any window accentuates the impact of
the image.
(Henderson 115; see also Ans. 8.)
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner that claims 7, 8, and 16—18 would have
been obvious over Thiele, Washburn, and Henderson. We address
Appellant’s arguments below.
Appellant contends that
Henderson, however, is not related to medical imaging.
Instead, Henderson is directed to display of superimposed
motion-video images in a windows user environment, and to
presentation of composited video images that enable “an
actor to move independently of the underlying application
windows, increasing the dramatic effect and allowing
9
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
accompanying digital content to be displayed in a
complementary fashion.”
(Br. 16.) Appellant thus argues that “Henderson is non-analogous art” {id.).
We are not persuaded.
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658—659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The devices of
Thiele, Washburn, and Henderson are intended for displaying images to a
user, among other things. We thus find that the general imaging and user
interface techniques of Henderson would have been “reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. And in
particular, the imaging techniques would have been pertinent to the display
issues faced by Thiele and Washburn, where Washburn recognizes the
overlap in medical and video motion arts (see Washburn 12 “Image
registration finds wide application in medical imaging, video motion
analysis, remote sensing, security and surveillance applications.”)
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that “the same imaging techniques
are used for both medical and non-medical images” (Ans. 11; FF 5—6).
Appellant argues that “the cited portions of Henderson fail to teach
adjusting a view port as claimed, or generating and displaying an updated
volume-rendered image after adjusting the shape of the view port” (Br. 16).
This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. See In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.
10
Appeal 2015-003360
Application 13/314,599
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1,11, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Thiele and Washburn. Claims 2—6, 9
and 10 fall with claim 1, claims 12 and 13 fall with claim 11, and claims 15,
19 and 20 fall with claim 14.
We affirm the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 16—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Thiele, Washburn, and Henderson.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
11