Ex Parte Tank

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2013

11006993 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)

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.
11/006,993 12/08/2004 Martin Tank P04,0469 8134
26574 7590 02/22/2013
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3768
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2013 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 MARTIN TANK
____________________

Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, SCOTT A. DANIELS and CARL M.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
10 and 14-16.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and control device to operate a
magnetic resonance tomography apparatus, used for scanning a patient’s
anatomical structure and constructing a viewable image of the scanned
anatomical structure. See Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:2
1. A method for operating a magnetic resonance tomography
apparatus, comprising the steps of:
for an examination subject to be examined for a diagnostic
inquiry, selecting an anatomical standard model a, that is
relevant to the diagnostic inquiry, said standard model having a
variable geometry acquiring a plurality of magnetic resonance
overview images of a region of the examination subject using
scan parameters to acquire said overview images according to
the selected anatomical standard model, said overview images
each being composed of slice image data;
determining a target structure in the slice image data of the
respective overview images;

1 The Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken does not include a
ground of rejection of claims 11-13, despite the general statement in the
Office Action Summary that claims 1-16 are rejected. Final Office Action
dated Nov. 16, 2009. See also Ans. 3-6 (listing grounds of rejection for only
claims 1-10 and 14-16). As such, claims 11-13 are not before us in this
appeal.
2 Appellant submitted an After Final Amendment on April 14, 2010 to
correct a typographical error in claim 1. We do not see any evidence in the
Record indicating that the Examiner entered this amendment. As such, we
have considered claim 1 without the amendment for purposes of this appeal.
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
3
individualizing said anatomical standard model by varying
said geometry thereof to cause the selected anatomical standard
model to conform to said target solution, thereby obtaining an
individualized anatomical standard model that differs from the
selected anatomical standard model;
selecting scan parameters for controlling said magnetic
resonance scanner to obtain diagnostic magnetic resonance
images of the region of the examination subject according to
said selected anatomical standard model and said diagnostic
inquiry, thereby obtaining selected scan parameters;
individualizing the selected scan parameters according to
said individualized anatomical standard model, thereby
obtaining individualized scan parameters; and
controlling said magnetic resonance scanner to obtain said
diagnostic magnetic resonance images of the region of the
examination subject, using said individualized scan parameters.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shibata
Chang
JP 04226636 A
US 6,195,409 B1
Aug. 17, 1992
Feb. 27, 2001

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-9 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chang. Ans. 3.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang and Shibata. Ans. 5.

Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-9 and 14-16 as a group for the first ground
of rejection, where claims 1, 14, 15 and 16 are the independent claims. See
App. Br. 12. We select claim 1 as representative of the group where claims
2-9 and 14-16 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011). Appellant presents additional arguments for the second ground of
rejection as to dependent claim 10, which we address in turn.

Claims 1-9 and 14-16 as anticipated by Chang
The Examiner found that Chang discloses each of the claimed method
steps recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3-5), and while disagreeing with Appellant as
to the proper interpretation of Chang, the Examiner found that Appellant’s
claim language does not adequately distinguish the present invention from
Chang. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner points to Chang as disclosing the step of
“selecting an anatomical standard model” where Chang discloses “the
abstract, schematic description of (the ‘model’) of the object of interest is
then matched with a reference template of the abstract, schematic description
of the object of interest that additionally contains information about the
location of standard optimal scanning planes, orientations and boundaries.”
Ans. 6 and Chang, col. 3, ll. 46-51. Specifically, with respect to Chang’s
“reference template,” the Examiner found that it is “selected from a plurality
of stored templates” that are “generic” in nature. Ans. 4, 7; see also Chang,
col. 4, ll. 31-47 (disclosing a database which holds “one or more templates
for scan prescriptions” and “a list of imaging protocols which may be
selected by a human operator.”)
During Chang’s matching step the Examiner further found that
overview, i.e., localizer, images were acquired according to parameters
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
5
based on the template, and “that either the ‘template’ or the ‘abstract model’
of Chang may be used to select scan parameters for the subsequent scan.”
Ans. 4, 7. Following the matching step, the Examiner notes that the images
are used to further refine the template or abstract model. Ans. 7 citing
Chang, col. 4, ll. 63-65 (“The images from new scans may be used as
additional localizer images, as indicated by an arrow pointing from step 5 to
step 2 in FIG. 2.”). From this, the Examiner concludes that the present claim
language does not exclude Chang’s acquiring of new overview or localizer
images from refined images based upon the individualized model which are
reused in a new iteration of Chang’s automated process. Id. In doing so, the
Examiner reasons that the template from the prior matching step is thus
selected before the “new” localizer images. Ans. 7.
Appellant argues initially that claim 1 is different from Chang where
the claim calls for the selection of the anatomical standard model (template)
before the overview images are obtained. App. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that
this presents an important contrast to Chang where in claim 1 the scan
parameters for the overview images are based on the prior selected
anatomical standard model (template). Id. Appellant also asserts that the
claim language does not encompass the Examiner’s interpretation of Chang
because “in the Chang reference, there is still no modification of the model
that takes place as a result of this comparison” between the “model” and the
“reference template.” Rep. Br. 2-3.
Appellant argues two additional points, first that in the presently
claimed invention the anatomical standard model (template) “is
individualized, by varying the geometry thereof,” to conform to a target
structure, and second that the scan parameters “are then individualized
according to the individualized anatomical standard model (that, as noted
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
6
above, differs from the selected anatomical standard model) and these
individualized scan parameters are then used to control the magnetic
resonance imaging apparatus to execute the diagnostic imaging.”
App. Br. 9. Appellant also disagrees with the Examiner’s equating Chang’s
abstract, schematic description of (the “model”) of the object of interest, to
the claimed “individualized model,” but contends that Chang’s model is
more properly “a form of a ‘template’” and therefore “does not, and cannot,
correspond to the individualized model that is produced in accordance with
the present invention.” Id.
We first make clear our understanding of the nomenclature as used by
Appellant and the Examiner in the context of Chang and claim 1. We
understand with respect to claim 1 that “an anatomical standard[/normal]
model” as recited in claim 1 is essentially a template, for example of a
generalized anatomical structure, such as a brain, or skull. See Ans. 6 and
Spec. 4. Specifically in regards to Chang, the abstract, schematic description
of the object of interest, i.e., the “model,” is determined by acquiring data
during the localizer scan of the object of interest and thus, cannot be a
template, particularly since the “model” is then matched to a template. See
Chang, col. 3, ll. 38-51. We understand that an “individualized anatomical
standard model” is the anatomical standard model as modified by altering, or
morphing the geometry thereof based on actual scans by the apparatus of an
anatomical structure, to conform towards an anatomical “target structure.”
Claim 1 and see Spec. 4-5. We further comprehend the terms “object of
interest” and “target structure” to similarly refer to an anatomical structure
of which an image is desired, and the terms “localizer image” and “overview
image” are interchangeably used throughout the appeal and this opinion. It
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
7
is with this understanding of the terminology used in the appeal that we
address the following issues.
We note that Chang, like Appellant, is focused on reducing the
manual/technician/operator induced variability and time consuming scan
parameter and orientation selection procedures. Chang, col. 2, ll. 17-46 and
see Spec. 1-2. Chang automates the entire scan process “so that the only
manual steps necessary for an operator to carry out a f[u]ll tomographic
study with multiple prescribed scans are to place a patient in a scanner and
to select a clinical imaging protocol from a list of available choices.” Chang,
col. 3, ll. 11-15. With the operator having begun the automated process by
selecting a clinical imaging protocol, Chang’s system performs a localizer
scan of a patient which yields the “model,” this is however not a template,
but an actual scan of an object of interest, e.g., a patient organ, such as “the
outer surface of the brain, the center locations of the eyes, and the locations
of the brain commissures.” Chang, col. 3, ll. 44-45. Chang then matches the
“model” with a template to obtain optimal scanning parameters based on the
“model” and its relationship to the selected template. Id. at ll. 51-54. These
optimal scanning parameters are then communicated to the scanner to
perform further scans which are comprised of slide image data for producing
images of the object of interest.
Claim 1 recites inter alia the steps of:
selecting an anatomical standard model, that is relevant to the
diagnostic inquiry, said standard model having a variable
geometry acquiring a plurality of magnetic resonance overview
images of a region of the examination subject using scan
parameters to acquire said overview images according to the
selected anatomical standard model, said overview images each
being composed of slice image data;
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
8
Appellant argues that because “[t]he selected anatomical standard model is
used to select or set the scan parameters that are employed for obtaining the
overview image… it is essential that the anatomical standard model be
selected before the overview image is obtained.” App. Br. 8. Appellant
however ignores the Examiner’s finding that Chang discloses the process “as
initially beginning with a very gross template[] or model[].” Ans. 7-8. As
explained by Chang, the automatic scanning sequence begins with an “initial
level[] of modeling” that is “very gross, but very robust, and can be as
simple as a bounding box or . . . a generic head shape.” Chang, col. 5, ll. 17-
25. This “initial” step, according to Chang, is “used to determine head size
and orientation in a fully automatic manner.” Id. (emphasis added).
Elaborating further, Chang states that “[o]nce a sample is matched with a
template, the various scanning planes of the sample image are determined
from the known planes of the template, allowing the reliable, precise and
accurate prescription of new scans for regions of interest in an automatic
fashion.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 9-13 (emphasis added). In other words, Chang
uses the known planes of the template to determine the subsequent scan
planes of the sample image, just as Appellant uses the anatomical standard
model to set the scan parameters of the later overview image. Even though
the initial scan parameters are set in Chang based on the relationship
between the selected template and the first localizer scans, claim 1 does not
exclude Chang’s subsequent looping iterations where following the setting
of the scan parameters based on the template in a previous iteration, in a
subsequent iteration the “model is moved, rotated, stretched, smeared or
whatever other geometric transformation may be necessary to obtain a good
fit between the generic model or template, and the particular image data.”
Chang, col. 5, ll. 41-44.
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
9
Giving claim 1 the broadest reasonable interpretation as we must, we
agree that Chang’s matching step (step 3), and subsequent looping steps
(step 4, step 5 and hence step 2) anticipates the above limitations of claim 1.
Even if the language of claim 1 is interpreted as asserted by Appellant,
Chang explicitly discloses that subsequent to the matching step (step 3)
“[t]he images from new scans may be used as additional localizer images, as
indicated by an arrow pointing from step 5 to step 2 in FIG. 2.” Chang, col.
4, ll. 63-65. In this looping scenario, the template is selected in the matching
step (step 3) as shown in Chang’s figure 2, subsequently, the overview, or
additional localizer images are obtained in (step 5). As the reiteration of the
loop occurs, the additional localizer images from (step 5) are used as the
new localizer images in the continuing iteration of the loop. Given the
disclosure that in (step 5) localizer images are determined following
selection of the scan parameters based on the template, the same template
and scan parameters based thereon will be reused again and again in (step 3),
while the scan images, localizer or otherwise will continue to be refined.
Appellant’s claim 1 does not exclude this interpretation, and we find no
error in the Examiner’s reasoning in this regard which is based on Chang’s
express disclosure of the localizer image developed in (step 5).
With respect to Appellant’s contention that the presently claimed
invention is different from Chang where the anatomical standard model
(template) “is individualized, by varying the geometry thereof,” to conform
to the target structure, we are also not persuaded that this step is anything
different from Chang’s matching step as noted above where the “model is
moved, rotated, stretched, smeared or whatever other geometric
transformation may be necessary to obtain a good fit between the generic
model or template, and the particular image data.” Chang, col. 5, ll. 41-44.
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
10
Appellant’s argument that Chang’s “model” is merely a template is not
persuasive. App. Br. 9. We do not agree that the Examiner is
misinterpreting Chang’s “model” as equivalent to the claimed individualized
anatomical model because as noted above, Chang’s “model” is based on the
localizer scans of a patient and therefore is not a template.
Turning to Appellant’s assertion that the limitations of claim 1 include
individualizing the scan parameters according to the individualized
anatomical standard model and that these individualized scan parameters are
then used to control the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus to execute
the diagnostic imaging, Chang’s disclosure explains that “[o]nce a sample is
matched with a template, the various scanning planes of the sample image
are determined from the known planes of the template, allowing the reliable,
precise and accurate prescription of new scans for regions of interest in an
automatic fashion.” Chang, col. 6, ll. 9-13. In other words, just as in claim
1, Chang modifies the underlying previously used template scan parameters
to obtain new (individualized) scan parameters according to the matched
sample and template model, which as discussed above, comports with the
individualized anatomical standard model recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s
reasoning, and thus, we affirm the anticipation rejections of claims 1-9 and
14-16.
Claim 10 as unpatentable over Chang and Shibata.
As acknowledged in the Appeal Brief with respect to claim 10,
Shibata discloses triangular surface elements formed by connecting
boundary line data of tomographic images to more exactly express the
geometric shape of an anatomical feature. App. Br. 12. Although taking
issue with the combination, Appellant merely relies on the arguments
Appeal 2011-002926
Application 11/006,993
11
presented for the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 for this
ground of rejection. Thus, for the same reasons we have sustained the
rejection of claim 1, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang and Shibata.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10 and
14-16 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh