Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12006702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/006,702 01/04/2008
30903 7590 09/22/2016
CRAIN, CATON & JAMES
FIVE HOUSTON CENTER
1401 MCKINNEY, 17TH FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stuart Smith
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
33849-157 7179
EXAMINER
HOANG, PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
wjensen@craincaton.com
jhudson@craincaton.com
ipdocket@craincaton.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART SMITH and DONALD MURRAY
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702 1
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--42. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Landmark Graphics
Corporation, the assignee of record and a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to selectively imaging
objects in a display of multiple three dimensional data-objects. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for selectively imaging one or more objects in
a display, which comprises:
defining a visualization surface within the display using a
computer processor;
selecting an object of interest from a plurality of objects
within the display; and
displaying only an image of the visualization surface, an
intersection between at least one of the plurality of objects
removed from the display and the visualization surface and an
image of all object(s) remaining in the display or an image of
the visualization surface and an intersection between the
object(s) remaining in the display and the visualization surface,
upon selecting the object of interest.
App. Br. 18. (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 15-20, and 41 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pommert et al. ("A Highly
Realistic Volume Model derived from the Visible Human Male") in view of
Arai (W0/2004/098414) with (US 2007/0010743 Al, published
Jan. 11, 2007) as unofficial translation. Final Act. 4--11.
Claims 21-23, 25-33, 35--40, and 42 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pommert, Arai, and Oldenziel
("Geometric Parameterization of Reservoir Model Enhances History-match
Procedure," The Leading Edge, June 2002). Final Act. 12-16.
2
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
Claims 24 and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pommert, Arai, and Lin et al. ("Interaction with
Geoscience Data in an Immersive Environment"). Final Act. 16-18.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the cited references, particularly Arai, do not teach
the claim 1 limitation:
[D]isplaying only an image of the visualization surface,
an intersection between at least one of the plurality of objects
removed from the display and the visualization surface and an
image of all object(s) remaining in the display or an image of
the visualization surface and an intersection between the
object(s) remaining in the display and the visualization surface,
upon selecting the object of interest.
App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 3--4.
According to Appellants, Arai does not teach the disputed limitation
because Arai does not teach a single image, but instead teaches four separate
displays (301-304) and none of these single images displayed meets the
requirement of the disputed limitation. App. Br. 13 (citing Arai Fig. 4).
According to Appellants, for example, images 301, 302, and 303 do not
include the display of a visualization surface. Id. Appellants further argue, if
the different images in Figure 4 are interpreted as a single display, Arai does
not teach the disputed limitation because the Examiner improperly identifies
the same element 103 as a removed object and as a remaining object. Id.
at 14. Specifically, the object 103 is shown as removed from the display
(302) and remaining in the display (304). and "the same object (103) in Arai
cannot be both removed and remaining." Id. (citing Arai i-f 56).
The Examiner finds Arai Figure 4 "can be interpreted as a single
display" as it is described "as a single view displayed on a monitor. Ans. 19
3
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
(citing Arai iii! 25, 56). The Examiner finds "[ s ]ince a monitor is a display
device comprised of pixels designed to display image data comprising
pixels, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a view on
the monitor can be seen as an entire image by a user." Id.
Regarding Appellants' argument that element 103 cannot be both a
removed and remaining object, the Examiner finds Arai teaches object 103
includes the patient and the ultrasonic image displaying objects inside the
patient, such as a bone. Ans. 19. The Examiner finds with respect to the
object (103),
Arai describes (103) to be a patient that is subjected to ultrasonic
waves for producing an ultrasonic image (Figure 2 and paragraph
0044) designed to capture the inside of the body of the patient
along multiple slicing planes (Paragraph 0038). Arai discloses
that the ultrasonic image ( 402) can display objects inside the
patient, such as a bone (313) (Paragraph 0053). The 3D Body
Mark (304) of FIG.4 only displays the patient (103) and a scan
plane (314) where the scan plane is used to display a current
ultrasonic slice in (302) (Paragraph 0059). Therefore, the
Appellant is incorrect in stating that "the same object (103) is
shown as removed from the display (302) and remaining in the
display (304)" since the remaining object (103) is of the patient
in (304) and the removed object is displayed in (302) as the inside
of the patient.
Ans. 19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings. Appellants present no persuasive argument
that the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term "object" to include the
teaching of Arai is unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
4
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, our reviewing court
cautions that great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the
Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-
25, 27-35, and 37--42 stand or fall together with claim 1 and, therefore, we
also sustain the rejection of these claims. App. Br. 10.
Claims 26 and 36
Claim 26, depends from independent claim 21, and recites the
disputed limitation discussed, supra, regarding claim 1, and also recites
additional disputed limitations:
moving the visualization surface within the display; and
(1) displaying an image of the visualization surface, an
intersection between the reservoir grid and the visualization surface
and an image of the object(s) remaining in the display or (2) an image
of the visualization surface and an intersection between the object(s)
remaining in the display and the visualization surface, as the
visualization surface is moved (emphasis and numerals (1) and (2)
added).
App. Br. 23.
Appellants argue Arai does not teach "updating the claimed display as
the visualization surface is moved" and "at most, teaches updating the
claimed display as the visualization surface is moved toward a target." App.
Br. 16 (citing i-fi-153---60). Appellants argue Arai teaches the numeric values
in the display region 407 are "updated" as the visualization surface moves to
show the distance from the visualization surface to a target 405. Id. at 16
(citing i159). According to Appellants, Arni's updating does not teach
displaying an image ... as the visualization surface is moved because, even
5
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
if the ultrasonic image 402 is updated, this does not teach "displaying an
image of the visualization surface (alleged scan plane 314) and an
intersection between the object(s) remaining in the display and the
visualization surface as the visualization surface is moved." Id.
The Examiner finds the disputed limitation of claim 26 ("the last step
of the claims") recites the term "or" and, therefore, the claim requires
limitations (1) or (2), not (1) and (2). Ans. 23. The Examiner finds Arai
"has been interpreted to disclose the features of (1 ). Id. at 23-24 (citing
i-f 59; Fig. 5, elements 405, 402). In particular, the Examiner finds:
Arai (Paragraph 0059) discloses an ultrasonic scan plane that can
be moved towards a set target ( 405) and displayed as an
ultrasonic image (Figure 5, element 402) where borders from a
reference image can be added in order to allow the user to
recognize a correspondence between the ultrasonic image and a
known reference image. As discussed above with respect to
claim 1 and similar claims in substance, an intersection between
the ultrasonic scan plane and the inside of the patient produces
an ultrasonic image of only the area \'l1here the inside of the
patient and the ultrasonic scan plane meet.
Therefore, the combination of Pommert, Arai, and Oldenziel
(relied upon to disclose a reservoir grid object) discloses
displaying an image of the visualization surface (Arai, figure 5,
where the scan plane equivalent is found in figure 4, element
314), an intersection between the reservoir grid (target object of
interest) and the visualization surface (Pommert, figure 3 and
Arai, figure 5, element 402) and an image of the object(s)
remaining in the display (Arai, figure 5, element 404, the patient
equivalent found in figure 4, element 103), upon selecting the
object of interest (Arai, paragraph 0059, set target object of
interest, figure 5, element 405).
Ans. 23-24.
6
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings. Arai relates to diagnostic imaging in real time
displaying a reference image and an ultrasonic image and teaches a
navigation function for guiding the scan plane of a probe to a target. Arai
i-fi-f l, 59; Fig. 5. As discussed, supra, the previously cited portions of Arai
teach the disputed limitation, and the additional findings of the Examiner
and additional cited portions of Arai regarding navigation teach the
additional disputed limitation recited in claim 26.
Moreover, independent claim 21, from which dependent claim 26
depends, does not recite the term "only." Also, Appellants' arguments
regarding "updating" are not commensurate with the scope of claims 26
and 36 as the term "updating" is not recited in these claims.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 26, and claim
36 (which depends from claim 31) which is argued together with claim 26.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection
must be based on
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, we find the Examiner presents
adequate articulated reasoning and rational underpinnings to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--42.
7
Appeal2015-004564
Application 12/006,702
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8