Ex Parte Segawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

12545976 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017)

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.
12/545,976 08/24/2009 Hidetake SEGAWA 24462 2554
23389 7590 01/30/2017
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
EXAMINER
KANAAN, MAROUN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2017 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@SSMP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDETAKE SEGAWA
Appeal 2014-007007
Application 12/545,976
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Hidetake Segawa (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1—24, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way to determine whether a floatation volume
of a capsule medical apparatus that is floating in liquid is adequate.
Specification 1:10—12.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed December 27, 2013) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April
2, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 5, 2013).
Appeal 2014-007007
Application 12/545,976
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A system for determining whether a floatation volume of a
capsule medical apparatus floating in a liquid is adequate, the
system comprising:
[1] an image acquiring unit
that acquires an actual image of the capsule medical
apparatus that is floating in the liquid,
the actual image including a boundary portion between a
level of the liquid and an exterior of the capsule medical
apparatus;
[2] an image processing unit
that generates a determination reference image
that represents a predetermined floatation volume
range of the capsule medical apparatus considered
to be adequate; and
[3] an adequacy determining unit
that compares the determination reference image with the
actual image
and
determines whether the floatation volume of the capsule
medical apparatus is adequate based on the result of the
comparison.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Kawano US 2007/0221233 A1 Sept. 27, 2007
Furukawa US 8,303,094 B2 Nov. 6, 2012
2
Appeal 2014-007007
Application 12/545,976
Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kawano and Furukawa.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the prior art
describes an image processing unit that generates a determination reference
image and an adequacy determining unit that compares the determination
reference image with the actual image and determines whether the
floatation volume of the capsule medical apparatus is adequate.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Kawano
01. Kawano is directed to a body-insertable device system and an
in-vivo observation method using a body-insertable device for
being introduced into a subject and sequentially taking images in
the subject. Kawano para. 3.
02. Kawano includes a capsule endoscope for being inserted into a
subject and imaging inside a digestive canal of the subject.
Kawano para. 90.
03. Kawano’s capsule endoscope imaging field of the imaging unit
fixed inside the casing is determined by the direction of the casing
on the space coordinates xyz. That is, the acceptance surface of
3
Appeal 2014-007007
Application 12/545,976
the imaging unit is placed vertically with respect to a
predetermined direction related with the casing, for example, the
major axis Cl. In this case, the central axis (that is, the optical
axis) of the imaging field of the imaging unit substantially
corresponds with the major axis and the acceptance surface of the
imaging unit is parallel to the two radial axes C2a, C2b which are
axis vector perpendicular to the major axis Cl. The radial axes
C2a, C2b are axis vectors of the casing in the radial direction and
the major axis Cl and the radial axes C2a, C2b are perpendicular
to each other. In such an imaging unit, the normal direction of the
acceptance surface, that is the direction of the imaging field, is
determined based on the direction of the major axis Cl on the
space coordinates xyz and the rotation angle of the acceptance
surface, that is the rotation angle of the imaging field which
rotates about the major axis Cl, is determined based on the
rotation angle of the radial axis C2a which rotates about the major
axis Cl. Kawanopara. 102.
Furukawa
04. Furukawa is directed to a liquid supply apparatus, an image
forming apparatus and a liquid supply method in which ink is
supplied to a recording head from a main tank via a sub tank.
Furukawa 1:8—12.
4
Appeal 2014-007007
Application 12/545,976
05. Furukawa describes a liquid supply apparatus comprising: a
main tank which stores liquid; a sub tank which is disposed
vertically above a recording head configured to eject the liquid
and which is not connected to atmosphere, the sub tank being
composed of a deformable member so that a volume of the sub
tank is changed depending on a volume of the liquid in the sub
tank; a first flow channel which connects the main tank with the
sub tank; a second flow channel which connects the sub tank with
the recording head; a flow rate determination device which
determines a flow rate of the liquid in the second flow channel; a
first pressure control device which controls an internal pressure of
the main tank according to the flow rate determined by the flow
rate determination device; and a second pressure control device
which controls an internal pressure of the sub tank so as to fall
within a prescribed range. Furukawa 2:1—17.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the prior art fails to
describe an image processing unit that generates a determination reference
image or an adequacy determining unit that compares the determination
reference image with the actual image and determines whether the
floatation volume of the capsule medical apparatus is adequate. Br. 10—11.
The first element, an image acquiring unit that acquires an actual image
of the capsule medical apparatus that is floating in the liquid, is not at
issue, and a comparison of the Application Fig. 3 to Kawano Fig. 2 shows
5
Appeal 2014-007007
Application 12/545,976
that Kawano’s capsule inherently includes the image of the capsule itself by
using the light passing through the capsule to acquire the image.
The Examiner relies on Kawano’s discussion of comparing coordinate
axes as describing an image processing unit that generates a determination
reference image. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 2. As Appellant contends,
comparing a coordinate axis is not an act of generating a reference image.
The Examiner similarly relies on Furukawa to describe an adequacy
determining unit that compares the determination reference image with the
actual image. Id. Again, the art does not describe comparing images. The
Examiner appears to be finding that the art describes comparing an actual
event to some reference. We do not quarrel with this basic engineering
practice as being shown and otherwise generally known. All of the
independent claims are more narrow and specify an implementation based
on images instead of disembodied parameters as the Examiner finds
described in the art.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kawano and Furukawa is improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
6