General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

15014847 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020)

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.
15/014,847 02/03/2016 Bruno Kristiaan Bernard De Man 283422-1 8926
68174 7590 08/31/2020
GE HEALTHCARE
c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
KEFAYATI, SOORENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
rariden@fyiplaw.com
robinson@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRUNO KRISTIAAN BERNARD DE MAN, LIN FU, and
MARK ALAN FRONTERA
____________________

Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
July 3, 2018 decision finally rejecting claims 1–20 (“Final Act.”). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real
party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure generally relates to a method for generating a
high resolution X-ray image of a patient (Spec. ¶ 6). The method includes
the use of small focal spot size for an X-ray source of an imaging system and
positioning the patient offset from the center of the imaging volume
(Abstract, Spec. ¶ 6). Details of the claimed method are set forth in
representative claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for generating a high-resolution image,
comprising:
specifying a focal spot size for an X-ray source of an
imaging system that is less than a size of a detector cell of a
detector of the imaging system;
positioning a region-of-interest of an imaged subject such
that the region-of interest is offset from an iso-center of a field-
of-view of the imaging system towards the X-ray source;
acquiring a first set of projection data over a limited
angular range that is less than 180° + α, wherein the X-ray
source moves in the limited angular range on a first side of the
field-of-view containing the region-of-interest when acquiring
the first set of projection data;
changing one or both of a relative orientation of the
region-of-interest or a relative position of the region-of interest
within the field-of-view such that the region-of-interest remains
offset from the iso-center after the change to its orientation or
position;
acquiring a second set of projection data over the limited
angular range, wherein the X-ray source moves in the limited
angular range on a second side of the field-of-view containing
the region-of-interest when acquiring the second set of
projection data;
Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847

3
registering at least the first set of projection data and the
second set of projection data to generate registered projection
data; and
reconstructing the registered projection data to generate
an image.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–16, and 18–20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jensen2 in view of Schoenmaekers3
and Sadakane.4
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jensen in view of Schoenmaekers and Sadakane, and further in view of
Heuscher.5
3. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jensen in view of Schoenmaekers and Sadakane, and
further in view of Pack.6

DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the claims together (see Appeal Br. 14, 15).
Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1 over
Jensen, Schoenmaekers, and Sadakane. The remaining claims will stand or
fall with claim 1.

2 Jensen et al., US 2016/0278719 A1, published September 29, 2016.
3 Schoenmaekers et al., US 8,199,878 B2, issued June 12, 2012.
4 Sadakane et al, US 2007/0041491 A1, published February 22, 2007.
5 Heuscher et al, US 9,332,946 B2, issued May 10, 2016.
6 Pack et al., US 2014/0254905 A1, published September 11, 2014.
Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847

4
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Jensen teaches most of the
limitations set forth in claim 1, including:
changing one or both of a relative orientation of the region-of-
interest or a relative position of the region-of interest within the
field-of-view (Fig. 12, s602, position of the region of interest is
changed to a second position), wherein the region- of-interest
remains offset from the iso-center (Fig. 13'A-13'B, Region of
interest offset) after the change to its orientation or position.
(Final Act. 4, emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner finds that FIGS. 13’A
and 13’B, reproduced below, show the region of interest being offset from
the iso-center:

Jensen’s FIGS. 13’A and 13’B show an image acquisition mode according
to one or more embodiments of its disclosed subject matter.
Appellant provides a detailed explanation of how Jensen moves its
target volume along the X-axis to be able to generate its images (Appeal Br.
10–11), but does not specifically explain why the Examiner’s finding that
FIGS. 13’A and 13’B show its region of interest is offset from isocenter is
erroneous (id.).
Appellant points to Paragraphs 49 and 50 of Jensen as supporting its
position. However, those paragraphs do not specifically state or suggest that
the region of interest is not offset from isocenter during treatment. At most,
Paragraph 49 states: “For isocentric treatment, the treatment center is aligned
Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847

5
with the isocenter 191 during a set up procedure” (Jensen ¶ 49, emphasis
added). As shown in the emphasized portion above, alignment with the
treatment center with the isocenter is only done during set up. Then, as
explained by Appellant, the treatment center is moved along the x-axis prior
to the images being taken. Moreover, as found by the Examiner, Jensen
specifically states that movement of the patient treatment couch moves the
target volume from the first position (where the treatment center is aligned
with the isocenter) to different positions (Ans. 8, citing Jensen ¶ 56).
Thus, Appellant’s arguments pertaining to the teachings relating to
offset positioning from the isocenter are not persuasive of reversible error in
the rejection.
The Examiner finds that Jensen does not specifically disclose a focal
spot for an X-ray source of an imaging system that is smaller than the size of
the detector cell (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Schoenmaekers
teaches this relative size of the focal spot and the detector cells, and
determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate this feature into
Jensen’s system “to increase the quality of the images by reducing the
noise,” and that doing so would have yielded predictable results (Final Act.
5, citing Schoenmaekers 23:61–24:5).
Appellant asserts simply that “Schoenmaekers fails to teach or even
suggest, ‘specifying a focal spot size for an X-ray source of an imaging
system that is less than the size of a detector cell of a detector of the imaging
system,’” but does not explain why the portions of Schoenmaekers cited by
the Examiner do not support the finding relied on in the rejection. This
undeveloped assertion is unpersuasive of reversible error. In re Lovin, 652
Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847

6
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (a cognizable argument requires more
substantive arguments than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a
naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior
art).
Appellant’s arguments with respect to Sadakane are unpersuasive for
the same reasons. Moreover, as explained by the Examiner, the rejection is
based on a combination of references, and arguments simply asserting that
any one reference does not teach each of the claim elements cannot be
persuasive of reversible error. Appellant “cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–8,
10–16,
18–20
103 Jensen,
Schoenmaekers,
Sadakane
1–3, 5–8,
10–16,
18–20

4 103 Jensen,
Schoenmaekers,
Sadakane,
Huescher
4
9, 17 103 Jensen,
Schoenmaekers,
Sadakane, Pack
9, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2019-006259
Application 15/014,847

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED