Ex Parte Visser

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10512721 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
10/512,721 10/29/2004 Cornelis Pieter Visser NL 020346 1398
7590 03/28/2013
Philips Electronics North America Corporation
Corporate Patent Counsel
PO Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
EXAMINER
BROOME, SAID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2013 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 CORNELIS PIETER VISSER

___________

Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 6-12. Claims 2, 4, and 5 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to producing and displaying an image of
a multi-dimensional volume, which includes identifying a target point within
the multi-dimensional volume and a surface, followed by projecting
information from the target point onto the surface. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 11 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method of producing and displaying an image of a
multi-dimensional volume, from a multi-dimensional object data set,
the method comprising the acts of:
identifying an interior target point within the multi-dimensional
volume;
creating a plurality of simultaneous target centric projection
paths by identifying an exterior surface and simultaneously projecting
a plurality of information from the interior target point onto the
identified exterior surface;
projecting onto the identified exterior surface information
describing a distance between the interior target point and the
identified exterior surface of the multi-dimensional volume;
identifying a critical structure within the multi-dimensional
volume;
projecting onto the identified exterior surface information from
the critical structure; and
enlarging the identified critical structure in volume prior to
projection onto the identified surface so that only the identified critical
structure is enlarged without enlarging remainder of the identified
surface.

Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721

3
11. A computer program encoded on a computer readable
medium for causing the computer to execute a method to produce and
display an image of a multi-dimensional volume, from a multi-
dimensional object data set, and causing the computer to perform the
acts of:
identifying an interior target point within the multi-dimensional
volume;
creating a plurality of simultaneous target centric projection
paths by identifying an exterior surface and simultaneously projecting
a plurality of information from the interior target point onto the
identified exterior surface;
projecting information describing the distance between the
interior target point and the identified exterior surface of the multi-
dimensional volume onto the identified exterior surface;
identifying a critical structure within the multi-dimensional
volume;
projecting onto the identified exterior surface information from
the critical structure; and
enlarging the identified critical structure in volume prior to
projection onto the identified surface so that only the identified critical
structure is enlarged without enlarging remainder of the identified
surface.

Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Gering (David T. Gering, A System for Surgical Planning and
Guidance using Image Fusion and Interventional MR (1999) (unpublished
M.S. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)) and Shahidi (U.S.
Patent No. 6,529,758 B2; Mar. 4, 2003).

Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721

4
ANALYSIS
§ 112, First Paragraph, Rejection
With respect to independent claim 11, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that the claim
limitation a “computer readable medium” complies with the written
description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner found that Appellant’s Specification does not
adequately describe the claim limitation a “computer readable medium.”
(Ans. 3-4.) In particular, the Examiner stated that “the claim language
pertaining to ‘a computer readable medium’ was not described in the
originally filed specification.” (Ans. 3.) We do not agree.
Appellant’s Specification discloses that “manipulations of the object
data set take place within the central processor of a computer and the
resulting images are viewed on a screen, usually a computer screen, in
digital format.” (Spec. 3:21-23 (emphasis added).) Appellant’s “central
processor of a computer,” also known as a “microprocessor” is defined as
“[a] central processing unit (CPU) on a single chip” such that “[w]hen
memory and power are added to a microprocessor, all the pieces, excluding
peripherals, required for a computer are present” (emphasis added).
MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 338 (5th ed. 2002). Because the
Specification discloses a “central processor of a computer,” one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the
computer includes a memory, thus providing written description support for
a “computer readable medium.”
Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721

5
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the Specification fails to
provide written description support for the limitation a “computer readable
medium.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

§ 103 Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-8; see also
Reply Br. 3-5) that the combination of Gering and Shahidi would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
“projecting onto the identified exterior surface information from the critical
structure.”
The Examiner found that Figure 2-11 of Gering, in which models are
displayed with different coloring, corresponds to the limitation “projecting
onto the identified exterior surface information from the critical structure.”
(Ans. 5.) In particular, the Examiner found that “the act of ‘projecting’ is
the projection of a specific color onto the surface of the critical structure, as
shown in Fig. 2-11, wherein the color serves as information indicative of a
particular property, such as thickness.” (Ans. 16.) We do not agree.
Independent claim 1 recites “projecting onto the identified exterior
surface information from the critical structure” (emphasis added). One
relevant plain meaning of “project” is “to cause (light or shadow) to fall into
space or (an image) to fall on a surface.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 932 (10th ed. 1999). Such a definition is
consistent with Figure 10A of Appellant’s Specification, which illustrates a
Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721

6
critical volume 102 “projected” from a target point 101 as an enlarged
projection 104 on an identified surface 103.
Gering relates to “a computerized surgical assistant whose core
functionality is embodied in a software package . . . call[ed] the 3D Slicer.”
(P. 2, Abstract.) Gering explains that the 3D Slicer generates “3D computer
models of key structures such as skin, brain vessels, tumor, and motor cortex
can be generated and visualized in a 3D scene along with reformatted
images.” (P. 17, § 1.2.1.) The 3D Slicer’s images may be edited such that
“slices can selectively clip away portions of some models, such as the skin,
to reveal other unclipped models beneath, such as a tumor.” (P. 20, para. 1;
see also Fig. 1-3). Gering further explains that:
These models display the 3D structure of a detected correlation
of functional response. Each model is colored differently (but
consistently between cases), and rendered with adjustable
opacity (such as the translucent tumor in Figure 2-11). We also
support applications that require varying a model's color along
its surface to visualize a property, such as bladder wall
thickness, for example.
(P. 42; see also Fig. 2-11.)
Although Figure 2-11 of Gering illustrates that organs may be colored
differently, Gering provides no express teaching of “projecting onto the
identified exterior surface information,” as recited in claim 1, particularly
when the claim language “projecting” is properly construed according to its
plain meaning. Thus, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that “Gering
does not project or cause an image (or information) to ‘fall on a surface’ but
rather displays the image in a certain way (i.e. in a certain color indicating
wall thickness).” (Reply Br. 4.) Furthermore, the Examiner’s application of
Shahidi does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Gering. (Ans. 6-7.)
Appeal 2010-008671
Application 10/512,721

7
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Gering and Shahidi would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation “projecting onto the identified exterior surface
information from the critical structure.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3 and 6-9 depend from independent
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 12 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 11 and 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3 and 6-12 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD