Ex Parte Yanof et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2011

10510861 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2011)

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.
10/510,861 10/12/2004 Jeffrey H. Yanof PHUS020348US 7068
38107 7590 01/26/2011
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. Box 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
EXAMINER
BROOME, SAID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JEFFREY H. YANOF, MELINDA STEINMILLER,
SHALABH CHANDRA, and HIMANSHU SHUKLA
________________

Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861
Technology Center 2600
____________________________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

2
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 13-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a system and method for auditing the review of
medical diagnostic images selected from an image volume data set. A
representational image of the volume data set is displayed while images
selected from the volume data set are also displayed. A mapping processor
identifies, e.g., by colorizing or shading, the portion of the imaged volume
data set from which displayed images are taken and, thereby, also identifies
the portions of the volume data set that have not been displayed. The
mapping processor stores duration of image display data in the associated
portion of the imaged volume data set as an indication of the “level of
review focus” (independent claims 4 and 13) paid by a radiologist in
reviewing images.2 Claims 1 and 4 are illustrative:
1. A system for auditing review of images of a patient, the
system comprising:
a source of an image volume data set of the patient;
at least one display device having at least two display regions;
a display processor for (1) generating a representation of the volume
data set in one of the display regions and (2) sequentially displaying
each of a plurality of selected slices of the image volume data set in
another of the displaly regions of the display device; and
a mapping processor which as each selected slice is displayed in the
second display region maps the selected slice into a corresponding
portion of the representation of the image volume data set and causes
the display processor to alter the display of the representation of the

2 See generally Spec. 9:10–15:20; Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a-5d, 6a, 6b.
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

3
volume data set to denote a corresponding portion of the volume data
set as having been displayed relative to the portions of the volume
data set that have not yet been displayed.
4. A system for auditing review of images of a patient, the
system comprising:
a source of an image volume data set of the patient;
a display device;
a display processor for selectively displaying each of a plurality of
portions of the image volume data set on the display device;
a mapping processor for performing a mapping transformation of each
portion of the image volume data set displayed on the display device
into a corresponding portion of a volume completion data set to store
in the volume completion data set a record of each portion of the
image volume data set that was displayed on said display device, the
mapping processor being configured to perform said mapping
transformation to map each displayed portion of the image volume
data set together with data relating to a level of review focus of each
displayed portion of the image volume data set into said
corresponding portion of the volume completion data set, said data
relating to said level of review focus including review audit
information indicative of a relative duration of each portion of said
image volume data set was displayed on said display device.
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Yanof US 5,371,778 Dec. 6, 1994
Yen US 6,762,774 B2 July 13, 2004
Kensaku Mori et al., A Method for Detecting Unobserved Regions in Virtual
Endoscopy System, 4321 PROC. SPIE 134 (2001).
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 19 as being unpatentable over Yanof and Mori (Ans.
3-6).
2. Claims 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 as being unpatentable over Yanof,
Mori, and Yen (Ans. 6-11).
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

4
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 19 (App. Br. 15, 18-19) as being obvious over Yanof and Mori
because these references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest
tracking “slices [i.e., images] which have been displayed relative to slices
[i.e., images] which have not been displayed” (App. Br. 15).
Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 4, 13, and 20 (App. Br. 16-20) as being obvious over
Yanof, Mori, and Yen because these references, alone or in combination, fail
to teach or suggest identifying “information indicative of a relative duration
that each portion of the diagnostic image volume data set was displayed”
(App. Br. 16-17).

ISSUES
Appellants’ contentions present us with the pivotal issues of whether:
1. The Examiner erred in finding Yanof and Mori, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest altering an image representation of an
image volume data set to identify portions of the volume data set that
have been displayed relative to those portions that have not been
displayed; and
2. The Examiner erred in finding Yanof, Mori, and Yen, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest identifying the durations that images
are displayed.

Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

5
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection over Yanof and Mori
We have analyzed the Examiner’s findings and conclusion for this
rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments, and we disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion.
Based on the record, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth in the Final Action that are contested in the Appeal Brief and (2) the
findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the
Appeal Brief that are contested in the Reply Brief.
For emphasis, we address specific arguments and findings regarding
the rejection of the argued independent claims 1 and 19 (App. Br. 15-16, 18-
19; Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellants focus the patentability contentions on assertions that the
references fail to teach or suggest tracking “slices [i.e., images] which have
been displayed relative to slices [i.e., images] which have not been
displayed” (App. Br. 15) and commensurately altering the imaged volume
data set.
The Examiner acknowledged that “Yanof fails to teach providing a
visual indication of which slices of the image volume data set have been
displayed” (Final Action 5), and finds:
Mori teaches altering the appearance of a corresponding slice of
a displayed representation of the image volume data set to
provide a visual indication of which portions of the image
volume data set have been displayed in the abstract lines 8-10
(“We calculate connected ‘unobserved’ patches or voxels and
consider them to be ‘unobserved regions’. In the presentation
step, the system displays the target organ while coloring
unobserved regions.”) . . . .
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

6
(Final Action 5). From at least the finding that Mori teaches colorizing
unobserved image subject matter, the Examiner reasons and concludes that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the teachings of Yanof with
Mori because this combination would provide a reduction in the
amount of time spent reviewing slices of volumetric data, as
taught by Yanof, by indicating which portions of that volume
data have been displayed, as taught by Mori, thereby ensuring
otherwise ignored regions of displayed slices are properly
analyzed.
(Final Action 5-6). We find this reasoning for combining reference
teachings to be rational because it is based on known methods that are
intended to provide predictable results. In such circumstances the Supreme
Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
Appellants argue that Mori fails to cure Yanof because Mori (1)
“makes no colorization changes during the first fly-through [i.e., displaying
Virtual Endoscopy System images of a colon examination]”; (2) instead
“display[s] [organ] surface triangles and not slices”; and (3) “coloriz[es] the
displayed diagnostic information itself” (App. Br. 15).
The record, we find, comports with the Examiner’s response that
“Yanof teaches displaying slices (col. 8 lines 43-47) [and also] the
corresponding representation of the volume data set [being] displayed (Fig.
2: ‘22’)” (Ans. 12). Whereas, Mori’s teachings support “altering the
[Yanof] representation of the volume data set to show which portion [of] the
volume representation[s] have been displayed relative to what has not been
displayed ([Mori] sec. 4.2 1st ¶ lines 10-14), therefore the [Yanof] volume
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

7
representation is changed as the corresponding slices are displayed to the
user” (id.; see supra for the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Yanof).
Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing as to the
references being deficient because these arguments assert individual
reference deficiencies, but do not address the Examiner’s reasoned
combination of reference teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (The test for obviousness is not that the claimed subject matter be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but what the
combined reference teachings would suggest to an ordinarily skilled
artisan.).
Obviousness Rejection over Yanof, Mori, and Yen
Appellants, inter alia, contend that the cited references fail to teach or
suggest identifying “information indicative of a relative duration that each
portion of the diagnostic image volume data set was displayed” (App. Br.
16-17) as is recited in independent claim 4, and as similarly recited in
independent claims 13, and 20 (App. Br. 16-20).
The Examiner acknowledges that “Yanof and Mori fail to teach . . .
including review audit information indicative of a relative duration of each
portion of said image volume data set displayed on the display device” (Ans.
7). The Examiner, though, finds “Yen teaches displaying color information
relative to a duration which a portion of diagnostic information has been
displayed (col. 2 lines 61-67 – col. 3 lines 1-4)” (Ans. 13).
Reviewing Yen, we find that the disclosed subject matter is directed to
a method for attracting the attention, i.e., alerting, a computer system user by
“changing the appearance of a particular object on a screen of the computer
system” (col. 1, ll. 14-18). Continuing our review, including the disclosures
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

8
cited by the Examiner, however, we fail to find any teaching or suggestion
for identifying a duration time for displaying any image or other
information. Accordingly, we fail to find the claimed subject matter taught
or suggested in any cited reference or combination of cited references.
We, consequently, find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 4, 13, and 20. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA
1974) (All claimed limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art in
order to establish obviousness.). We also find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claims 5-9, 11, and 14-18. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103
if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”
(citations omitted)).

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred in finding Yanof and Mori, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest altering an image representation of an
image volume data set to identify portions of the volume data set that
have been displayed relative to those portions that have not been
displayed.
2. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 19, as
well as dependent claim 2 not separately argued with particularity,
over Yanof and Mori is sustained.
3. The Examiner has erred in finding Yanof, Mori, and Yen, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest identifying the duration that images are
displayed.
Appeal 2009-003133
Application 10/510,861

9
4. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 4, 13, and 20,
as well as dependent claims 5-9, 11, and 14-18, over Yanof, Mori, and
Yen is not sustained.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 19 is affirmed, and
the decision rejecting claims 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 is reversed.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. Box 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510