Ex parte Shioiri

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2000

08216842 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2000)

Application for patent filed March 24, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TAKASHI SHIOIRI
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0745
Application 08/216,8421
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before URYNOWICZ, THOMAS and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 8-10 and
12-14, all the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to a medical image processor. Claim
8, the sole independent claim, is illustrative and reads as
follows:
8. A medical image processor for correlating and analyzing
at least two comparison images, comprising:
Appeal No. 1998-0745
Application 08/216,842
2
means for substantially simultaneously displaying said two
comparison images;
means for setting at least one reference point in one of the
images;
means for setting a correlation detection area related to
said at least one reference point in the other image;
means for obtaining and calculating a degree of correlation
between image information of said at least one reference point and
image information of each point in said detection area;
means for displaying a plurality of numerical values
representing the degree of correlation in a rectangular
correlation table, the plurality of said numerical values being
arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with respect to each point
in the detection area;
image movement means for relatively moving said two
comparison images so that the image information of said at least
one reference point coincides with image information of a
corresponding point represented by a maximum numerical value in
said correlation table, said means for obtaining and calculating a
degree of correlation and said image movement means being operable
alternately and repeatedly; and
decision means for deciding a coincidence between the image
information of said reference point and the image information of
the corresponding point.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Mayer et al. (Mayer) 4,404,590 Sep. 13,
1983
Verdooner et al. (Verdooner) 5,220,360 Jun. 15,
1993
Claims 8-10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Verdooner.
Appeal No. 1998-0745
Application 08/216,842
3
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Verdooner in view of Mayer.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 12) and the examiner’s answer and
supplemental answer (Paper Nos. 19 and 22) and the appellant’s
brief and reply brief (Paper No. 18 and 20).
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that the
rejections should not be sustained.
With respect to sole independent claim 8, the examiner
acknowledges in the answer that Verdooner does not teach that
images are aligned based on the maximum numerical value in a
correlation table. The observation is made that images are
aligned according to matching landmarks (reference points) and the
conclusion is made
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to align the images according to the points of greatest
Appeal No. 1998-0745
Application 08/216,842
4
correlation in order to ensure that the corresponding features
were being compared in the two images.
We disagree with the examiner’s analysis. The correlation
table relied on by the examiner is illustrated in Figure 9 of
Verdooner. This table relates to image comparison after images
have been aligned and represents changes in a patient from
previous visits. Unlike appellant, the correlation table is not
used to
align images and there is no showing why it would have been
obvious
to modify the reference to utilize a correlation table formed in
the manner defined in claim 8 to align images.
The examiner has provided no convincing rationale as to why
it would have been obvious to use a correlation table such that
image movement means moves two images so that “image information
of said at least one reference point coincides with image
information of a corresponding point represented by a maximum
numerical value in the correlation table”. The fact that it was
well known to perform various types of processing on image data
(answer at page 7) does not establish that appellant’s invention
Appeal No. 1998-0745
Application 08/216,842
5
would have been obvious over Verdooner. Verdooner moves images
relative to each other utilizing correlated landmarks or reference
points on the images in order to ensure that corresponding
features were being compared in the images, but there is no
evidence that the specific processing (image movement for
alignment of images) claimed by appellant utilizing a correlation
table was known in the prior art.
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of claim 8, the
sole independent claim, as obvious over Verdooner, we will not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9, 10 and 12 as obvious
over Verdooner
or the rejection of claims 13 and 14 as obvious over Verdooner in
view of Mayer.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1998-0745
Application 08/216,842
6
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
JAMES D. THOMAS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

SMU/kis
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW
GARRETT & DUNNER
1300 I Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005