Ex Parte Sathyanarayan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11282456 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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.
11/282,456 11/17/2005 Shashidhar Sathyanarayan 1362001-2037.1 3838
79292 7590 09/25/2012
Boston Scientific Corporation
c/o Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151
EXAMINER
COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte SHASHIDHAR SATHYANARAYAN
__________

Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before STEPHEN WALSH, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and SHERIDAN K.
SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to medical
imaging systems. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a medical imaging
system that includes a console coupled to both an imaging transducer
assembly and at least one electronic diagnostic device, where the console is
configured to receive echo signals from the imaging transducer assembly,
and where “[a]ssigning color values at a first scale and applying the assigned
color values to an image at a different scale is a salient feature.” (App. Br.
7; Reply Br. 5, emphasis in original.)
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-14, 16 and 17 are on appeal and claim 1 is the
only independent claim. Appellant presents the same arguments for
patentability of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-14 and 17. (App. Br. 12.) We select
claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 3-5, 7, 11-14 and 17 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Dependent claim 16 is
argued under a separate subheading. (App. Br. 13.) Claims 1 and 16 read as
follows (emphasis added):
1. A medical imaging system comprising:
an imaging transducer assembly configured to emit one or more
energy pulses at an area within a patient and receive one or more echo
signals;
at least one electronic diagnostic device configured and
arranged to collect data; and
a console coupled to the imaging transducer assembly and to
the at least one electronic diagnostic device;
wherein the console is configured to receive the one or more
echo signals from the imaging transducer assembly, assign color
values to portions of the one or more echo signals, each color value
denoting an uncompressed magnitude level of one of the portions of
the one or more echo signals, generate one or more uncompressed
images based on the one or more echo signals, generate one or more
compressed images based on the one or more uncompressed images,
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

3
generate a color overlay based on the assigned color values, and apply
the color overlay to the one or more compressed images, wherein the
color overlay is transparent;
wherein the console is configured and arranged to receive data
from the at least one electronic diagnostic device and apply the
received data to the color overlay.

16. The medical imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a user-
friendly interface coupled to the console, the user-friendly interface
configured and arranged to enable a user to adjust the color values
assigned to the magnitude levels of the one or more echo signals to
enhance user perceptibility of distinctions in magnitude levels.

The claims stand rejected as follows:
 Claims 1, 3-5, 11-12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Rigby et al. (US 5,910,115,
issued Jun. 8, 1999), Edwards (US 4,718,757, issued Jan. 12, 1988),
Washburn et al. (US 6,077,226, issued Jun. 20, 2000) and Gouge et al. (US
6,067,371, issued May 23, 2000).
 Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rigby, Edwards, Washburn and Gouge, as applied to
claim 1, and further in view of Sattin et al. (US 4,818,938, issued Apr. 4,
1989).
 Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rigby, Edwards, Washburn and Gouge, as applied to
claim 1, and further in view of Chalana et al. (US 2003/0174872 A1,
published Sep. 18, 2003).
 The Examiner has also provisionally rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-14,
16, and 17 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

4
24-29 of copending Application No. 10/896,142. Appellant has not
traversed the merits of this rejection. We therefore summarily affirm it. See
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1205.02 (“If a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant‟s brief, that
ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).
I.
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-14, 16 and 17 in a
series of rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) that rely on the combination of
Rigby, Edwards, Washburn and Gouge. The Examiner finds that the
combination of references teaches or suggests all elements of the claims.
(See Ans. 5-7.)
Appellant contends that “[n]one of the cited references teach or
suggest assigning color values at an uncompressed scale, and applying those
assigned color values to compressed images at a scale that is different from
the uncompressed scale.” (Reply Br. 5.) Rather, the cited references “teach
assigning color values and applying those color values using a single scale
(either uncompressed or compressed).” (Id.)
The issue with respect to these rejections is: Did the Examiner‟s
stated rejection over Rigby, Edwards, Washburn and Gouge satisfy the
Examiner‟s initial burden of presenting evidence to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness so as to shift the burden to the Appellant to establish
non-obviousness of the claimed invention?

Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

5
Findings of Fact
FF1. Rigby discloses a filter for increasing contrast between tissue
types by distinguishing them on the basis of the degree of coherence of the
received ultrasound signals. (Rigby, col. 2, ll. 17-19.)
FF2. Rigby discloses a coherence factor C that provides independent
information about patient tissue and that can be displayed as a color map
overlaid onto a B-mode image. (Rigby, col. 5, ll. 48-50.)
FF3. The Examiner finds “Rigby discloses an ultrasonic imaging
system comprising a console configured to receive one or more echo signals,
generating a transparent color overlay and applying the color overlay to a B-
mode image,” but notes that “Rigby does not expressly disclose wherein the
B-mode image to which the color overlay is applied is a „compressed‟
image.” (Ans. 11.)
FF4. Edwards discloses enhancement of images on instant color film
using color-coded images, “which has been accomplished with complex
electronic equipment in which a color is arbitrarily assigned to each small
range of magnitude of the ultrasonic pulse echo.” (Edwards, Abstract and
col. 1, ll. 38-42).
FF5. The Examiner finds that “one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time of the invention, would readily recognize a modification to the color
overlay as described by Rigby to assign different colors based on detected
magnitudes as described by Edwards in order to visually enhance diagnostic
images since the human eye has relatively poor gray sale performance,” but
notes that “Edwards has failed to disclose a step of compressing data.” (Ans.
6-7.)
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

6
FF6. Washburn “relates to methods and apparatus for adjusting a
region of interest relative to a sector-shaped background image frame in
ultrasound imaging of biological tissues.” (Washburn, col. 1, ll. 8-11.)
FF7. Washburn discloses as follows:
“A B-mode ultrasound image is composed of multiple image
scan lines. The brightness of a pixel is based on the intensity of
the echo return from the biological tissue being scanned. The
outputs of the receive beamformer channels are coherently
summed to form a respective pixel intensity value for each
sample volume in the object region or volume of interest. These
pixel intensity values are log-compressed, scan-converted and
then displayed as a B-mode image of the anatomy being
scanned.”
(Washburn, col. 2, ll. 1-9; emphasis added.)

FF8. The Examiner finds that “it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compressed image
obtained by Rigby with a log compressed image as described by Washburn
in order to improve the efficiency in which image data is processed and/or
displayed.” (Ans. 6.)
FF9. Gouge discloses a method and system for mapping temperature
from image data from an ultrasound display device that involves “correlating
[a] measured differential to a temperature change for the tissue
corresponding to the group of pixels …, overlaying an indication of
temperature over the tissue image in response to [a] correlated temperature
change indicating a change in temperature range for the tissue.” (Gouge,
Abstract; col. 3, ll. 50-63.)
FF10. The Examiner finds that Gouge teaches that it was well known
to add diagnostic data to a color overlay, “[p]articularly, temperature
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

7
information supplied by an independent temperature probe” and that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have made such a modification to
the combined teachings of Rigby and Washburn “in order to visualize the
temperature of internal tissues on a medical image display as such a
modification requires nothing more than the mere combination of known
prior art techniques to yield predictable results, which has previously been
held as unpatentable.” (Ans. 6, 12.)

Principles of Law
[T]he examiner bears initial burden, on review of the prior art
or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.

After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.

In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“A patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
However, a prima facie conclusion of obviousness may be supported by a
showing that a combination of familiar elements according to known
methods yields no more than predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401;
citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 (1966).

Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

8
Analysis
Appellant states:
Rigby, Edwards, Washburn, Gouge, Sattin, and Chalana teach
assigning color values and applying those color values using a single
scale (either uncompressed or compressed). None of the other
references recognize the benefits of assigning color values at an
uncompressed scale, and applying those assigned color values to
compressed images.
(App. Br. 12.)
The Examiner does not dispute Applicant‟s assertions that a single
cited reference fails to teach the disputed feature, but argues that the
combination of Rigby, Edwards, Washburn and Gouge renders the claims
obvious. (FF3, FF5, FF8, FF10.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Rigby
with the teachings of Edwards, related to a color overlay defined based on
uncompressed magnitudes (i.e. amplitudes) of returned echo signals (FF4.),
“in order to visually enhance diagnostic images.” (FF5.) The Examiner
finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
system of Rigby with the teachings of Washburn, teaching a B-mode image
based log-compressed pixel intensity values (FF7), “in order to improve the
efficiency in which image data is processed and/or displayed.” (FF8.) The
Examiner relies on the teaching of Gouge to show that it was well known to
add diagnostic data to a color overlay and to find that such a modification
required nothing more than the mere combination of known prior art
techniques to yield predictable results. (FF10.)
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner‟s Answer fails to indicate any
basis for combining the cited references in a manner that is not contemplated
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

9
or suggested by any of the references to select colors at an uncompressed
scale, and applying those assigned color values to compressed images at a
scale that is different from the uncompressed scale.” (Reply Br. 5.)
However, after reviewing the record before us, we find Appellant has failed
to traverse the Examiner‟s specific findings noted above. The Examiner has
provided a rational basis for the proposed modifications. (FF3, FF5, FF8,
FF10.) The fact that none of the references individually disclose assigning
color values at an uncompressed scale, and applying those assigned color
values to compressed images is not sufficient to establish that the Examiner
erred in reaching a conclusion of obviousness based upon the combined
teachings of the references. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (Each reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what
it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”).

Conclusion of Law
We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record does
not support a finding that the Examiner erred in reaching a conclusion of
obviousness. We thus affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-14 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

II.
Issue
Dependent claim 16 is argued under a separate subheading. (App. Br.
13.) The Examiner has rejected claim 16 as being unpatentable over Rigby,
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

10
Edwards, Washburn and Gouge, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Chalana.
Appellant contends that Chalana does not teach or suggest a user
interface configured and arranged to enable a user to adjust a “color value”
and that “[o]ne of skill in the art would not consider adjusting the
transparency of a color to be analogous to adjusting the color value.” (App.
Br. 13.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 16 would have been obvious over
the combinations of Rigby, Edwards, Washburn, Gouge and Chalana?

Additional Findings of Fact
FF11. Chalana relates to an imaging system for quantitative
information extraction from multi-modal medical images such as ultrasound
and discloses as follows:
The image segmentations are displayed as color overlays on the
original images. These overlays can be displayed in a region
mode or in an edge mode. In the region-mode the entire overlay
region is showed filled with a selected color as shown in FIG.
3. In the edge-mode, only the boundaries of the region are
displayed as overlaid on the original image as shown in FIG. 4.
Both display modes are useful in different scenarios and the
present system allows the user to rapidly switch between the
two modes. The user can vary the degree of translucency of the
regions as well as the borders from opaque to transparent.

(Chalana, ¶ [0102].)

FF12. The Examiner finds that:
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

11
[I]n its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “adjust the
color value” reads on adjusting the transparency (e.g. color
value) displayed for the color overlay. “Adjusting the color
value” does not necessarily “change the color completely” (e.g.
blue to red). Moreover, in its broadest reasonable interpretation,
a “light” red and a “dark” red are considered to be different
colors in the color spectrum. An adjustment of a red color
overlay to display a “light” or a “dark” red color certainly
affects the amount of colorization applied to the image.

(Ans. 13.)
FF13. The Examiner finds that “it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the control unit as
disclosed by Rigby in view of Washburn in view of Gouge with a user
adjustable color overlay control to adjust the transparency of a color overlay
on an image as described by Chalana in order to display additional data onto
an acquired diagnostic image while still being able to visualize features
present in the diagnostic image.” (Ans. 9.)
Principles of Law
The Board “determines the scope of claims in patent applications not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction „in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”‟ Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, the Board “avoid[s] the
temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification
passages.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Absent
claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

12
claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources
expressly disclaim the broader definition.” Id.; citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co.
v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906-09 (Fed.Cir.2004) (explaining
requirement for an express disclaimer in either the specification or
prosecution history).
Analysis
Claim 16 is directed to a medical imaging system that enables “a user
to adjust the color values assigned to the magnitude levels of the one or
more echo signals to enhance user perceptibility of distinctions in magnitude
levels.” (App. Br. 17.) Appellant contends that the Examiner misinterprets
the term “color value” by reading the term to encompass both the “type” and
“amount” of color. Specifically, Appellant states:
One of skill in the art would not consider adjusting the
transparency of a color to be analogous to adjusting the color
value. A color value indicates a color assignment, or a type of
color (e.g., green, purple, or the like). In contrast, transparency
indicates an amount of applied color or, in other words, how
well a viewer can see an object (e.g., a gray scale image)
through the color (e.g., opaque, translucent, semi-transparent, or
the like). Therefore, adjustment of the transparency of a color
does not change the “type” of the color, but rather the “amount”
of the color. Thus, the transparency of the color can be changed
without affecting the value of that color.

(App. Br. 13.)

This argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner,
transparency, or the amount of color, may be a color value and adjusting a
color value is reasonably interpreted to encompass more than changing the
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

13
color completely such as blue to red. (FF12.) For example, a color value
adjustment may include a change of assignment from dark red to light red.
(FF12.) While Appellant cites to passages of the Specification disclosing
the feature to customize color changes, we are unpersuaded that these
passages disclaim the Examiner‟s interpretation. We thus decline to import
from the Specification a limitation that would apply the term “adjusting the
color value” only to complete changes of color.
Having determined the scope of claim 16, we consider the Examiner‟s
findings on obviousness. (FF13.) The evidence and reasoning set out in the
rejection were sufficient to shift the burden to the Appellant to rebut.
Appellant has not met this burden. (See App. Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 2.)
Specifically, Appellant has not addressed the findings relating to
obviousness under the Examiner‟s interpretation of the term “color value”.
We, therefore, affirm the Examiner‟s conclusion of obviousness.

Conclusion of Law
The record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that the cited
references would have made the system of claim 16 prima facie obvious.

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11-12 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rigby,
Edwards, Washburn and Gouge.
We affirm the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rigby, Edwards, Washburn, Gouge and Sattin.
Appeal 2011-011204
Application 11/282,456

14
We affirm the rejection of claims 13, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Rigby, Edwards, Washburn, Gouge and
Chalana.
We affirm the provisional rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-14, 16, and
17 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and
24-29 of copending Application No. 10/896,142.
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

alw