Ex Parte Sevenster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

14358075 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
14/358,075 05/14/2014 Merlijn Sevenster 2011P01212WOUS 5534
24737 7590 08/02/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue RUDOLPH, VINCENT M
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
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 MERLIJN SEVENSTER, YUECHEN QIAN, and
JOHANNES BUURMAN
Appeal 2017-003835
Application 14/358,075
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-003835
Application 14/358,075
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, and 4—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ application relates to processing a report, for example, a
textual report created by a radiologist, in order to form an association
between a specific description in the report and a data object referenced by
the description, for example, an image dataset. See Spec. 1:24—2:31. A
hyperlink can be created so that a user can click the link in a report viewer to
view a pop-up of the data object referenced by the description in the report.
Spec. 2:17—18. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A system for processing a report, comprising
a reference description detector for processing a natural
language textual report to detect a description of a reference to
at least part of a data object, wherein the description is
expressed in natural language as a part of the natural language
textual report;
an associating unit for generating an association between
the description of the reference and said at least part of the data
object; and
a description interpreter for interpreting the detected
description of the reference, to obtain a normalized
representation of the reference.
2
Appeal 2017-003835
Application 14/358,075
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Moriya US 2011/0066635 A1 Mar. 17,2011
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1,2, and 4—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Moriya.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 8—15
Appellants contend Moriya fails to disclose “a description interpreter
for interpreting the detected description of the reference, to obtain a
normalized representation of the reference,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
3—5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Appellants assert the claim language “a normalized representation of
the reference” should be interpreted so as to be limited to a textual format.
App. Br. 3. The Specification does not explicitly define “a normalized
representation,” but provides it may be, “for example, a representation in
XML format or another standardized format.” Spec. 5:31. Thus, according
to the Specification, “a normalized representation” could be in any
standardized format. However, even if we construe the disputed limitation
in the light most favorable to Appellants—i.e., “a normalized representation
of the reference” must be in a textual format—we find Moriya discloses this
limitation.
3
Appeal 2017-003835
Application 14/358,075
The Examiner cites Figure 7 of Moriya (Final Act. 4), which
illustrates an embodiment where
it is desirable for a keyword 105B within the image observation
report... to be linked to a medical image 121 that includes a
detected organ, etc. by a hyperlink. In this case, the link data
generating means 60 links the keyword 105B within the image
observation report and a slice image 121A that includes the
detected organ, etc. with a hyperlink ....
Moriya 1157. We find Moriya’s converting keyword 105B (comprised of
the text “right upper lobe”) into a hyperlink, as shown in Figure 7, meets the
limitation of a “interpreting the detected description of the reference, to
obtain a normalized representation of the reference” according to
Appellants’ definition. That is, keyword 105B, represented as a hyperlink in
Moriya’s image observation report, is in a standardized textual format.
We, therefore, find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1,
2, and 8—15.
Claims 4—7
Appellants contend Moriya fails to disclose “wherein the description
interpreter comprises a view parameter extraction unit for extracting a view
parameter indicative of a view of the data object from the description of the
reference,” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 6. We find Appellants’ argument
to be persuasive.
Claim 4 recites “extracting a view parameter . . .from the description
of the reference” (emphasis added). Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends,
recites “the description is expressed in natural language as a part of the
natural language textual report.” Accordingly, claim 4 requires extracting
the view parameter from the description of the reference in the report.
4
Appeal 2017-003835
Application 14/358,075
Moriya’s link generator operates by matching keywords in an image
observation report to keywords corresponding to automatically identified
organs and pathologies in medical images (see Moriya 199), and not by
extracting view parameters from keywords in the report. In other words,
Moriya matches keyword to keyword to determine which keywords in a
report should be linked to which images, rather than extracting specific
parameters indicating particular images from keywords in the report.
The Examiner’s citation to Moriya’s paragraphs 106 and 109 for
meeting the disputed claim 4 feature is unavailing. Paragraph 106 relates to
discovering organs in images, and paragraph 109 relates to providing indicia
representing discovered organs. However, as noted above, claim 4 requires
extracting a view parameter from a description in a report.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4, and claims 5—7 which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4—7,
but did not err in rejecting claims 1,2, and 8—15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4—7 is
reversed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 8—15 is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2017-003835
Application 14/358,075
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6