Ex Parte Saranathan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2012

11625054 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MANOJKUMAR SARANATHAN,
CHRISTOPHER J. HARDY, and THOMAS K. F. FOO
__________

Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
imaging apparatus and method and to a computer readable storage medium.
The Examiner has rejected the claims for lacking written description and for
being obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-
part.
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-20 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 2). Claims 1, 2, 3, 8
and 15 are representative and read as follows:
1. A magnetic resonance (MR) imaging apparatus comprising:
a plurality of gradient coils positioned about a bore of a magnet;
an RF transceiver system and an RF switch controlled by a pulse
module to transmit RF pulses to an RF coil assembly and receive MR
signals therefrom; and
a controller programmed to:
cause acquisition of a series of scout images;
determine a motion of an anatomy of interest among more than
three of the series of scout images; and
adjust a position of an acquisition slice during MR image
acquisition based on the motion of the anatomy of interest.
2. The MR apparatus of claim 1 wherein the controller is further
programmed to define a region of interest (ROI) within a reference image of
the series of scout images, the ROI containing the anatomy of interest.
3. The MR apparatus of claim 2 wherein the controller is further
programmed to determine the motion of the anatomy of interest by cross-
correllating positions of the ROI between the reference image and the more
than three of the series of scout images.
8. A method of coronary MR imaging comprising:
identifying a region of interest (ROI) in a reference scout image
generated by a magnetic resonance (MR) apparatus; and
in a computer operational with the MR apparatus:
(A) cross-correlating positions of the ROI between the
reference scout image and each of a series of scout images acquired by the
MR apparatus during an R-R interval;
(B) determining a number of cross-correlation maps from the
cross-correllated positions of the ROI; and
(C) applying the cross-correlation maps to define a number of
acquisition slices during MR imaging of the region of interest.
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

3
15. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a set
of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a computer, cause
the computer to:
measure, from a series of scout image frames, a non-linear motion of
an object of interest during one period of a periodic motion thereof; and
prospectively adjust a location of an MR acquisition slice using the
measured non-linear motion to track the object of interest during imaging.
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 4).
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Foo1 as evidenced by Sinha2 (Ans. 4).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Foo
as evidenced by Sinha and in view Wang3 (Ans. 5).
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Foo as evidenced by Sinha and in view Hardy4 (Ans. 6-7).
Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Foo as evidenced by Sinha and in view Wang and Hardy (Ans. 8).
Claims 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Foo in view Hardy (Ans. 10).
I
In rejecting claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
Examiner finds that “it is not understood how the ‘cross-correlation maps’

1 Foo et al., US 6,057,680, May 2, 2000.
2 Sinha et al., Estimation of the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Using a
Novel Multiphase, Dark-Blood, Breath-Hold MR Imaging Technique, AJR
169: 101-112 (1997).
3 Wang, US 6,198,959 B1, Mar. 6, 2001.
4 Hardy et al., US 6,088,488, Jul. 11, 2000.
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

4
relate to a ‘number of acquisition slices’” (Ans. 4). In particular, the
Examiner finds that he “understands that in Paragraph [0033] of the
specification it is described why it is desirable to fit as many images as
possible into the R-R interval, however, no mention of ‘cross-correlation
maps’ is discussed relating to ‘defining a number of acquisition slices’
(emphasis added) (e.g. quantity of slices)” (id.).
Issue
Does the evidence support the Examiner’s conclusion that the
Specification does not describe applying cross-correlation maps to define a
number of acquisition slices?
Analysis
Appellants argue:
Based on the teachings of the Specification and a reading of
claim 8 as a whole, one skilled in the art would readily
recognize that phrase “applying the cross-correlation maps to
define a number of acquisition slices during MR imaging,” as
used in claim 8, refers to a definition of acquisition slice
parameters (e.g., location), rather than a specific quantity or
amount of slices that are defined. Accordingly, Appellant
believes that the relationship between “cross-correlation maps”
and “a number of acquisition slices” was described in the
Specification so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the
relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed
invention at the time the application was filed.
(App. Br. 5.) In response, the Examiner “contends that the particular
paragraphs ([039]-[44]) as pointed out by Appellant do not preclude the
Examiner’s interpretation of Claim 8” (Ans. 12).
We conclude that Appellants have the better position. Although we
understand the Examiner’s concern, we do not agree that this concern
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

5
supports a written description rejection. On the contrary, it appears that it
would be better raised in the context of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Conclusion
The evidence does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that the
Specification does not describe applying cross-correlation maps to define a
number of acquisition slices. We therefore reverse the written description
rejection.
II
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Foo as evidenced by Sinha, the
Examiner finds that “Foo discloses a magnetic resonance MR imaging
apparatus” (Ans. 4). The Examiner notes:
[I]t is considered a well known expedient in the art that a
magnetic resonance imaging apparatus includes a plurality of
gradient coils positioned about a bore of a magnet and an RF
transceiver system and RF switch system controlled by a pulse
module to transmit RF pulses to an RF coil assembly and
receive MR signals therefrom. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus
disclosed by Foo would be equipped with such limitations.
(Id. at 4-5.)
The Examiner also finds that “Foo discloses a controller programmed
to: cause acquisition of a series of scout images . . . ; determine a motion of
an anatomy of interest . . . ; and . . . adjust a position of an acquisition slice
during MR image acquisition based on the motion of the anatomy of
interest” (id. at 5). In addition, the Examiner notes “that Foo specifically
discloses utilizing a ‘cine scout view sequence’ which would include more
than three images as evidence by Sinha . . . which discloses ‘The cine
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

6
sequence (TR=12 msec), permitted acquisitions of 18-22 temporal slices
(depending on the R-R interval of the subject) . . . ’” (id.).
Issue
Does the evidence support the Examiner’s conclusion that Foo, as
evidenced by Sinha, teaches or suggests a controller programmed to
determine a motion of an anatomy of interest among more than three of a
series of scout images?
Analysis
As found by the Examiner, “Foo discloses a controller programmed
to: cause acquisition of a series of scout images . . . ; determine a motion of
an anatomy of interest . . . ; and . . . adjust a position of an acquisition slice
during MR image acquisition based on the motion of the anatomy of
interest” (Ans. 5 (citing Foo, col. 3, ll. 23-55 & 62-67, & col. 4, ll. 1-14)).
Appellants argue, however, that Foo “does not specify how many scout
images are included in the cine scout view sequence, much less disclose
determining motion among more than three of a series of scout images as
specifically called for in claim 1” (App. Br. 6). However, the Examiner
provides evidence that the cine sequence permits the acquisition “of 18-22
temporal slices (depending on the R-R interval of the subject)” (Sinha 103-
104). We understand Appellants’ argument that the linear model would only
require the use of three points to plot the artery displacement versus time
graph depicted in Foo Figure 2 (Reply Br. 2). However, this argument does
not persuade us that Foo’s controller is not programmed to determine motion
among more than three, for example, four, of a series of scout images.
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

7
That is, claim 1 is drawn to an imaging apparatus, not a method of
using the apparatus. Thus, even though Foo uses a linear model, Sinha
provides evidence that the cine sequence permits the acquisition of more
than three images. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner’s finding that Foo’s controller would be programmed
to use more than three of the series of scout images, as the use of a linear
model does not preclude the use of more than three images.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Foo, as
evidenced by Sinha, teaches or suggests a controller programmed to
determine a motion of an anatomy of interest among more than three of a
series of scout images. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 1.
III
In rejecting claims 8-20 as obvious over Foo in view of Hardy, the
Examiner finds that “Foo discloses a method of coronary MR imaging
comprising using a computer program to acquir[e] MR images of a coronary
artery and determin[e] a maximum excursion or displacement of the vessel
during the cardiac cycle, or R-R interval” (Ans. 10). The Examiner also
finds that “Foo discloses observing the motion of an artery by acquiring a
cine scout scan . . . and adjusting acquisition slices based on the motion”
(id.).
The Examiner finds that “Hardy teaches from within the same field of
endeavor with respect to imaging coronary vessels . . . wherein a reference
image is selected and an ROI is selected within the reference image” (id.).
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

8
The Examiner also finds that “positions within the ROI are cross-correlated
between the reference image and a series of successive images which
determine a coronary vessel offset for each image” (id. at 10-11). In
addition, the Examiner finds that “Hardy discloses determining a cross
correlation map” (id. at 11).
The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to have modified the manner in which motion is observed in
the cine scout images as described by Foo [with] a technique
which selects an ROI in a reference image and cross correlates
the ROI with other images to determine a cross correlation map
as described by Hardy in order to accurately determine and
quantify motion and displacement of a coronary artery using
magnetic resonance imaging.
(Id.)
Issues
Does the evidence support the Examiner’s conclusion that Foo and
Hardy suggest the method of claim 8?
Does the evidence support the Examiner’s conclusion that Foo and
Hardy suggest the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of
claim 15?
Analysis
With regard to claim 8, Appellants argue:
[W]hile Hardy et al. may disclose cross-correlating an
ROI in a reference image with other images to generate an
average image with improved image quality, Hardy et al. does
not disclose applying cross-correlation maps to define a number
of acquisition slices during MR imaging as specifically called
for in claim 8. Instead, at best, Hardy et al. uses the results of
the disclosed cross-correlation in a post-processing step to
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

9
identify “good” or “usable” images to include in an averaged
image. . . . Accordingly, Hardy et al. does not teach applying
cross-correlation maps during MR imaging as called for in
claim 8.
Thus, as the Examiner admitted that Foo et al. is silent
with respect to “cross correlating the positions of the ROI
between the reference image and a series of scout images to
determine a number of cross correlation maps to define motion
in order to properly adjust acquisition slices,” . . . and as Hardy
et al. does not teach applying cross-correlation maps to define a
number of acquisition slices during MR imaging, it follows that
the combination of Foo et al. and Hardy et al. also fails to teach
determining and applying cross-correlation maps as called for
in claim 8.
(App. Br. 9.) We are not persuaded.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 10-11), Hardy discloses identifying a
region of interest (ROI) on a reference image and then cross-correlating the
ROI “with each successive captured image to result in a cross-correlation
image” (Hardy, col. 1, ll. 54-57). Hardy also discloses that an image
selector “has logic predefined in it to determine if there is a peak in the
correlation map, and also determines if the peak is within a predetermined
distance from the edges of the correlation image” (id. at col. 4, ll. 45-49). In
addition, Hardy discloses that “[w]hen the cross-correlation image shows a
peak within the region of interest, and more than a predetermined distance
away from an edge of the region of interest, a ‘useable’ image is identified”
(id. at col. 1, ll. 61-64).
Hardy may not disclose doing this with scout images, which are used
in Foo to define acquisition slices during MR imaging (Foo, col. 3, l. 23, to
col. 4, l. 14). However, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to use the method of Hardy on the scout images described in Foo
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

10
(Ans. 11 & 15). Thus, Appellants’ argument does not persuade us that the
combination of Foo with Hardy fails to suggest determining and applying
cross-correlation maps to define acquisition slices during MR imaging.
With regard to claim 15, Appellants argue:
Neither of Foo et al. or Hardy et al., alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests measuring, from a series of scout image
frames, a non-linear motion of an object of interest or
prospectively adjusting a location of an MR acquisition slice
using the measured non-linear motion to track the object of
interest during imaging.
(App. Br. 10.) The Examiner finds “that the cross correlation map as
disclosed by Hardy relates to the motion of the coronary artery which is
considered ‘non-linear’” (Ans. 11). The Examiner also finds: “Hardy
teaches imaging coronary vessels with a series of successive images and
determining a coronary vessel offset for each image with respect to a
reference image. Examiner contends this offset provides a ‘measurement of
non-linear motion’ in which subsequent slices can be adjusted as described
by Foo.” (Id. at 16.) We conclude that Appellants have the better position.
We understand that the coronary artery itself has a non-linear motion.
However, as noted by Appellants (App. Br. 10-11), Foo discloses that it “is
useful and reasonable to assume a linear model for such motion” (Foo,
col. 4, l. 66, to col. 5, l. 1). In addition, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how Hardy suggests instead
measuring a non-linear motion of the coronary artery.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 10-11), Hardy discloses that a
“number of usable images . . . may be . . . sorted by their offsets and only
those with similar offsets are averaged” and that, “if one were to recover the
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

11
offset of the coronary vessel in each image, one could use the offset to
correct the position of the image before averaging with others in the
sequence” (Hardy, col. 1, ll. 65-67, & col. 2, ll. 55-58). However, we do not
agree with the Examiner that this suggests modifying Foo to measure non-
linear motion.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Foo and Hardy
suggest the method of claim 8. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 8. Claims 9-14 are not separately argued and therefore
fall with claim 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner has not, however, set forth a prima facie case that Foo
and Hardy suggest the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of
claim 15. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 15 and of
claims 16-20, which depend from claim 15.
IV
In rejecting claims 2-7 as obvious over Foo as evidenced by Sinha and
in view of Hardy, the Examiner relies on Foo, Sinha, and Hardy as discussed
above (Ans. 6-7). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
“to have modified the controller configured in a magnetic resonance imaging
apparatus as set forth by Foo in view of Sinha to define an ROI within an
imaging area as described by Hardy in order to accurately track and quantify
displacement of particular areas of interest” (id. at 7).
Appellants do not traverse the rejection of claim 2. We affirm the
rejection of this claim for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer
(id.) and the reasons discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 8. In
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

12
addition, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument concerning claim 3
for the reasons discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 8. Thus, we
affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3 over Foo as evidenced by
Sinha and in view of Hardy. Claim 4-7 are not separately argued and
therefore fall with claims 2 and 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
V
Appellants do not appeal the rejection of claim 2 as obvious over Foo
as evidenced by Sinha and in view Wang or the rejection of claims 3-7 as
obvious over Foo as evidenced by Sinha and in view Wang and Hardy (App.
Br. 3). We therefore summarily affirm these rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5-6 & 8-10).
SUMMARY
We reverse the written description rejection of claims 8-14.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Foo as evidenced
by Sinha.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 2 over Foo as evidenced
by Sinha and in view Wang.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 2-7 over Foo as
evidenced by Sinha and in view Hardy.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 3-7 over Foo as
evidenced by Sinha and in view Wang and Hardy.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 8-14 but reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 15-20 over Foo in view Hardy.
Thus, claims 15-20 are not currently subject to a rejection.
Appeal 2011-009548
Application 11/625,054

13
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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-IN-PART

lp