KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 4, 20212021002867 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/565,697 10/11/2017 NICOLE SCHADEWALDT 2015P00169WOUS 4350 24737 7590 10/04/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER BYKHOVSKI, ALEXEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2021 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NICOLE SCHADEWALDT, STEFFEN RENISCH, SVEN PREVRHAL, HEINRICH SCHULZ, and THOMAS BLAFFERT Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a therapy system for radiotherapy planning with improved accuracy.” Spec. 1, ll. 2–3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a magnetic resonance imaging system; a processor for controlling the apparatus; and a memory containing machine executable instructions and a pulse sequence, wherein execution of the instructions causes the processor to control the apparatus to perform operations comprising: (a) acquiring magnetic resonance data from an imaging volume using the magnetic resonance imaging system and the pulse sequence; (b) segmenting the magnetic resonance data into a plurality of segments indicating respective tissues in the imaging volume; (c) creating a bulk electron density map of the imaging volume from the plurality of segments; (d) displaying, on a display device of a graphical user interface, the bulk electron density map and radiation dose distributions for the imaging volume, wherein the radiation dose distributions are determined using the bulk electron density map; (e) after displaying on the display device the bulk electron density map and radiation dose distributions for the imaging volume, receiving a modification signal for modifying at least a first segment of the segments; (f) recreating the bulk electron density map using the modification signal, and recalculating the radiation dose distributions using the recreated bulk electron density map; and (g) displaying the recreated bulk electron density map and the recalculated radiation dose distributions on the display device of the graphical user interface. Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Cline et al. US 5,204,625 Apr. 20, 1993 Schulz et al. US 2011/0007959 A1 Jan. 13, 2011 Kumar et al. US 2011/0178389 A1 July 21, 2011 Remmele et al. US 2014/0296696 A1 Oct. 2, 2014 Frank et al. US 2016/0225146 A1 Aug. 4, 2016 Chester R. Ramsey et al., Magnetic resonance imaging based digitally reconstructed radiographs, virtual simulation, and three-dimensional treatment planning for brain neoplasms, 25 Med. Phys. 1928–34 (Oct. 1998) REJECTIONS Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 3. Claims 1, 3–6, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Remmele and Ramsey. Final Act. 5. Claims 2, 12, 13, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Remmele, Ramsey, and Frank. Final Act. 18. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Remmele, Ramsey, and Kumar. Final Act. 24. Claims 8–10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Remmele, Ramsey, and Cline. Final Act. 27. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Remmele, Ramsey, and Schulz. Final Act. 31. Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 4 OPINION Indefiniteness The Examiner rejects claim 4 as being indefinite because “[i]t is not clear how a first value of a voxel can be higher than the maximum value” and that “[i]t is unclear how the maximum value is defined.” Final Act. 4. Appellant best explains this via example in the arguments relating to the obviousness rejection of claim 4. As noted by Appellant, in one illustrative example, assume that the first set of voxels includes 12 voxels having respective values from 1 to 12. Further assume that the user selects the voxels having the values of 10–12, and indicates that the maximum value for these pixels is 10. In that case, the voxels which have the values 11 and 12 would have those values replaced by 10 in the recreated BED map. Reply Br. 16. In Appellant’s example, the voxels having a value of 11 and 12 would be indicative of a first tissue or first type of tissue, whereas the voxels having a value of 1–10 would be indicative of a second tissue or type of tissue (because the maximum value for the second tissue type is 10). The modification signal in the example is indicative of a maximum value because the user has selected it to be 10, which, as noted above, is the maximum value for the second tissue type. It would probably be more clear if the claim stated that the “selection includes selection of a maximum value,” but we agree with Appellant that “indicative of a maximum value” is not so unclear as to be indefinite. Thus, although the initial map displayed the voxels having a value of 11 and 12 as a first type of tissue, because of the modification, those values would be changed to 10, which is the maximum value of a second type of tissue and the recreated map would Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 5 change the selected voxels from the first tissue type to the second tissue type. Claim 5 contains similar language and the reasoning above applies equally to claim 5. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the claims are definite and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5. Reliance on Remmele All of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections include Remmele and its alleged teaching of displaying the bulk electron density map, receiving a modification signal, and subsequently displaying a recreated map using the modification signal. As Appellant points out, however, Remmele does not support the Examiner’s finding of the claimed displaying of the initial map and the modified or “recreated” map. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3–13. The Examiner states that “Remmele makes the above combination of operations obvious by disclosing filtering of created bulk electron density map.” Ans. 5 (citing Remmele Fig. 19, ¶ 154). We agree with Appellant that “FIG. 19 does not teach that the bone probability atlas 1936 or either of the electron bone density maps 1934 or 1944 is displayed.” Reply Br. 8. Figure 19 is a pictorial flow chart, but nothing in the description relating thereto states what is or is not displayed. According to the Examiner, “[i]mages have any practical use only if displayed in order for an operator to make an informed decision about the treatment plan.” Ans. 8. We do not agree that this is necessarily true, especially in the context of Remmele. As Appellant points out, Remmele applies automatic filtering of the image as part of the process shown in Figure 19, but nowhere does Remmele state that the initial image is actually displayed on a display device of a graphical user interface. Reply Br. 8. Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 6 The Examiner appears to admit this, stating that “[d]isplaying electron bulk density map before and after filtering is implicit in Fig. 19.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also points out that Appellant’s own Specification states that “[i]n case of an automatic received modification, the display steps may be optional.” Id. This makes sense in the context of a system like Remmele because, if the filtering is automatic, then there seems to be no need or benefit to display the initial, unfiltered image. Based upon this disclosure in the Specification, the Examiner asserts that “the scope of claim 1 is broader than the claim interpretation provided by the applicants.” Id. Although the Examiner is generally correct regarding Appellant’s disclosure, what is critical to consider is the present limitations of the claims, which actually require the displaying and doing so both before and after receipt of the modification signal. The Examiner’s cited disclosure, if anything, strengthens Appellant’s argument that displaying an image both before and after the automatic filtering is not implicit in Remmele because, if the filtering is done automatically, Appellant’s disclosure states that displaying the unfiltered image can be an optional step. As noted above, this also seems to be the logical process when filtering is automatic. By stating that the displaying of the map before modification is implicit, while also pointing out that it can be optional, the Examiner essentially admits both that Remmele does not disclose the initial display and also that it is not necessarily implicit because one of skill in the art would have understood it to be optional. To be clear, Appellant’s claims explicitly require displaying the original image, then receiving a modification signal after this initial display, and then displaying the recreated image. Accordingly, one practicing the Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 7 invention would have to display the original, unmodified image and then also, after receiving the modification signal, display the claimed recreated image. Thus, the automated method in Remmele, as well as any automated method according to Appellant’s disclosure where the first image is not actually displayed (e.g., if optional) would not fall within the scope of the claims. Because the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidentiary support for the finding relied on that Remmele discloses the claimed displaying both before and after receipt of the modification signal, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 14, each of which contain similar limitations. None of the secondary references was relied upon in a way that would cure this defect. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4, 5 112(b) Indefiniteness 4, 5 1, 3–6, 14, 15, 19, 20 103 Remmele, Ramsey 1, 3–6, 14, 15, 19, 20 2, 12, 13, 16–19 103 Remmele, Ramsey, Frank 2, 12, 13, 16–19 7, 17 103 Remmele, Ramsey, Kumar 7, 17 8–10, 18 103 Remmele, Ramsey, Cline 8–10, 18 Appeal 2021-002867 Application 15/565,697 8 11 103 Remmele, Ramsey, Schulz 11 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation