Ex parte Vuylsteke

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 13, 2001

08335917 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 2001)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte PIETER VUYLSTEKE
________________
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16, which constitute
all the claims in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a method for
processing an image in a radiographic imaging system in which
an electric signal representation of the image is mapped to
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-2-
density values for visualization of the image. The invention
is particularly directed to the manner in which the density of
low density areas in a diagnostically irrelevant zone in the
image are enhanced.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
A method of processing an image in a radiographic imaging
system wherein an electric signal representation of said image
is mapped to density values for visualization as a hard or a
soft copy image characterized in that the density of low
density area in a diagnostically irrelevant zone in the image
is enhanced and image structure in said zone is kept visible,
by converting in said diagnostically irrelevant zone of the
image pixels located at position (x,y) according to a
conversion function
g(x,y) = a.f(x,y) + (1-a).f wherein f(x,y) is the signalmax
value before conversion of a pixel located at position (x,y),
a is a value between zero and one, and f is equal to themax
maximum of values f(x,y), prior to being subjected to mapping
into density values.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Steele et al. (Steele) 4,803,639 Feb. 07, 1989
Vuylsteke et al. (Vuylsteke) 5,467,404 Nov. 14, 1995
(filed Aug. 03,
1992)
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Vuylsteke in view
of Steele.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-3-
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-16. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-4-
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657,
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-5-
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to each of independent claims 1-3, the
examiner has indicated how she has reached the conclusion of
obviousness [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues that the
examiner has ignored the conversion function recited in each
of claims 1-3 [brief, pages 4-5]. The examiner indicates that
the formula disclosed in Vuylsteke at column 9, lines 2-28 is
equivalent to the claimed function if the parameters in the
reference are given specific definitions [answer, page 4].
Appellant responds that the examiner’s formula does not equate
to the claimed formula and the definitions given by the
examiner are improper [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-6-
claimed invention because the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants are correct
that the conversion formula in Vuylsteke is not the same as
the claimed conversion formula. Not only does the examiner’s
formula fail to equate to the claimed formula, but the
examiner’s definitions of “y”, “x ” and “(x/x ) ” make nomax max po
sense when applied to the Vuylsteke disclosure. There is
clearly no suggestion in Vuylsteke of defining the parameters
of Vuylsteke’s formula in the manner proposed by the examiner.
Since the formula disclosed by Vuylsteke is not the same as
the claimed formula, and since the examiner has not addressed
the obviousness of the claimed formula in view of the
Vuylsteke disclosure, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of the discussion above, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1-3 or of claims 4-
16 which depend from claim 1. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-16 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-7-
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/ki
Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
-8-
John A. Merecki
Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts
3 Lear Jet Lane
Suite 201
Latham, NY 12110