John Mortimer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2019

12658085 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2019)

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.
12/658,085 02/02/2010 John Mortimer 10172-039US1 9395
96039 7590 12/17/2019
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2019 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):
docketing@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN MORTIMER, TONY SCHELLENBERG, and
PIERE LEMIRE
____________________

Appeal 2018-4399
Application 12/658,085
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 8 through 11, and 13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Calgary Scientific Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004399
Application 12/658,085

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use in volume ray casting.
Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below.
1. A method comprising:
using a processor projecting for a pixel of a 2D
image placed in a view plane a ray of sight from the
view plane through a volume determined by a
plurality of voxels of a volumetric dataset indicative
of an object, the view plane having a predetermined
distance and orientation to the volume;
using the processor determining a plurality of
sampling points along the ray of sight such that a
distance between consecutive sampling points is
larger at a larger distance to the view plane, wherein
the distance between consecutive sampling points
increases incrementally with each set of consecutive
sampling points along the path of the ray of sight;
using the processor determining for at least a
portion of the plurality of sampling points a color
value and a transparency value in dependence upon
voxels in proximity of the respective sampling point
and in dependence upon a lighting calculation; and,
using the processor determining for the ray of sight
a final color value by compositing along the ray the
color values and the transparency values, the final
color value of the ray contributing to a pixel value of
the 2D image, the 2D image being indicative of the
object.

Appeal 2018-004399
Application 12/658,085

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US 6,674,430 B1) and Ledergerber
(“Volume MLS Ray Casting”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics, Col. 14, No. 6, November/December 2008, pp. 1372-
1379). Final Act. 3–9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 10 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman, Ledergerber and
Kiefer (US 2008/0246770 A1). Final Act. 9–16.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues the combination of Kaufman and Ledergerber do not
teaches the claim 1 limitation directed to “determining a plurality of
sampling points along the ray of sight such that a distance between
consecutive sampling points is larger at a larger distance to the view plane,
wherein the distance between consecutive sampling points increases
incrementally with each set of consecutive sampling points along the path of
the ray of sight.” Appeal Br 11–15. Specifically, Appellant argues that
Kaufman teaches equidistant sampling points. Appeal Br. 12–13 (citing

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 8,
2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed May 10, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 18, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2018-004399
Application 12/658,085

4
Kaufman Figs. 20A, 22 and col. 14, l. 61 through col 14, l. 28). Further,
Appellant argues that Ledergerber teaches “increasing interval lengths can
be used with increasing accumulated opacity values and decreasing interval
lengths must be used near extrema of the scalar function” and that “the
sampling interval also decreases (i.e., becomes finer) along the ray in
proximity to extrema of the scalar function.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing
Ledergerber Fig. 5, and p. 1375).
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, finds that
“Kaufman divides the volume into slabs, the sampling points on the slab
boundaries along the path of the ray of sight form a new set of the sampling
points, where the distance between consecutive slab boundaries is
incremented along the path of the ray of sight.” Ans. 3 (citing Kaufman Fig.
22). Further, the Examiner finds:
Ledergerber describes using variable length evaluation intervals
along a ray. As shown in Fig. 5 of Ledergerber, the horizontal
axis shows the distance along one particular ray. Each vertical
line indicates a sampling point along the ray. It is true that in
the example shown in Fig. 5 the intervals are chosen to decrease
in some ranges and increase in other ranges. However, wherein
the distance between consecutive sampling points increases
incrementally with each set of consecutive sampling points
along the path of the ray of sight is within the teaching of
Ledergerber, as shown in the way of choosing last 4 sample
points (see the intervals between the sampling points for the last
4 sampling points on the right of Fig. 5).
Ans. 4.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Kaufman and Ledergerber
and concur with Appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 recites that “the distance
between consecutive sampling points increases incrementally with each set
of consecutive sampling points along the path of the ray of sight” thus the
Appeal 2018-004399
Application 12/658,085

5
distance between each sampling point is always increasing. Independent
claim 11 recites a similar feature. As such we disagree with the Examiner
that Ledergerber teaches the limitation. Ledergerber teaches the distance is
adapted based upon opacity, and while in some instances the distance may
increase, as pointed out by Appellant and acknowledged by the Examiner,
Ledergerber also depicts that the distance between sampling points may
decrease. Similarly, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
Kaufman’s teachings of sampling points along the slab boundaries meets the
claim, as the Examiner has not shown that the boundaries, and sampling
points on the boundaries, are incrementally further apart at increasing
distances from the view point. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and the claims which
depend thereupon.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8 and 13 rely upon
the teachings of Kaufman and Ledergerber to teach similar limitations in
independent claims 8 and 13. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8, 13, and the claims which
depend thereupon.

Appeal 2018-004399
Application 12/658,085

6

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8 through 11, and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 11 103 Kaufman and
Ledergerber
1, 2, 11
8-10, 13 103 Kaufman,
Ledergerber and
Kiefer
8–10, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 8–11, 13

REVERSED