Ex Parte Proksa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13266556 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/266,556 10/27/2011 Roland Proksa
24737 7590 09/14/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2009P00915WOUS 1091
EXAMINER
YANG, WEI WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
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 ROLAND PROKSA and MICHAEL GRASS
Appeal2015-004651
Application 13/266,556
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004651
Application 13/266,556
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
determining at least two energy-dependent components
based on projection data from at least two non-agent based
spectral scans, wherein a first of the at least two spectral scans
is performed at a first emission voltage and a second of the at
least two spectral scans is performed at a second emission
voltage, wherein the first and second emission voltages are
different; and
decomposing, with a decomposer, agent-based time
series projection data for an object or a subject into at least an
agent-based component based on the at least two energy-
dependent components.
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Walter '621 (US 2009/0052621 Al,
Feb. 26, 2009). Final Act. 5-9. 1
1 As to this rejection, the rejection of independent claim 1 is determinative.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8,
9, 15, 16, and 18-20 is not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2015-004651
Application 13/266,556
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walter '621 in view of Walter '443 (US 200710189443
Al, Aug. 16, 2007). Final Act. 10-13.2
Appellants' Contention3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
claim 1 requires decomposing agent-based time series
projection data into an agent-based component based on two
energy-dependent components, which are determined based on
projection data from two non-agent based spectral scans. In
other words, the agent-based component is determined based on
agent-based and non-agent-based projection data. Appellant's
brief explains that Walter does not disclose this. The
Examiner's Answer seems to ignore that the agent-based
component is decomposed based on agent-based projection data
and the energy-dependent components determined based on
non-agent based spectral scans.
Reply Rr. 2 (Appellants' emphasis omitted, Panel emphasis added).
Appellants also contend:
Walter discloses decomposing agent-based projection data into
an agent-based component only based on agent based projection
data from an agent-based scan.
As best as Appellant understands, the Office has
dissected the subject claim limitation into discrete elements and
has evaluated them in isolation. One discrete element is
2 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of independent claim 1
is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejections
of claims 10 and 12-14 are not discussed further herein.
3 This contention is determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore,
Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2015-004651
Application 13/266,556
determining the at least two energy-dependent components
based on projection data from at least two non-agent based
spectral scans. In Walter, two energy-dependent components
are decomposed from projection data from a non-agent based
scan. The other discrete element is decomposing agent-based
time series projection data into at least an agent-based
component based on energy-dependent components. In Walter,
a contrast agent component (and two materials such as bone and
soft tissue) is decomposed only from agent-based projection
data from an agent based scan, and not from projection data
from a non-agent based scan.
Walter does not disclose a non-dissected claim 1. That
is, claim 1 requires decomposing agent-based time series
projection data into at least an agent-based component based on
the least two energy-dependent components, which are
determined based on projection data from non-agent based
spectral scans, and agent based projection data. In other words,
the decomposition to generate the agent-based component
requires energy-dependent components determined from non-
agent based scans. In stark contrast, Walter discloses
decomposing agent-based projection data only from an agent
based scan, and is silent about and does not enable
decomposing agent-based data based on projection data from
non-agent based scans.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Walter '621 fails to disclose the argued limitation?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants' above recited contention. The
Examiner finds:
4
Appeal2015-004651
Application 13/266,556
Walter discloses determining at least two energy-dependent
components based on projection data from at least two non-
agent based spectral scans (see Walter: e.g. --decomposition
technique may decompose the photoelectric and Compton
components for an imaged material. So, images corresponding
to the photoelectric or Compton components of the imaged
material may be generated {wherein, photoelectric or Compton
components are at least two energy-dependent components} in
addition to or instead of the density based images-, at [0058],
and, -two or more sets of projection data are obtained for the
imaged object at different tube voltages {"at different tube
voltages" is considered as two non-agent based spectral scans,
and above energy-dependent components of the photoelectric or
Compton components are respectively two energy-dependent
components, which are non-agent based}-, at [0035]).
Ans. 10-11 (emphasis omitted).
We have reviewed Walter '621 at paragraphs 35 and 58. We
conclude that the Examiner's finding is not supported by Walter '621 for the
reasons set forth by Appellants at Reply Br. 2---6.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 18-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 10 and 12-14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2015-004651
Application 13/266,556
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20
are reversed.
REVERSED
6