Alexander Vija et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2020

13451579 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
13/451,579 04/20/2012 Alexander Hans Vija 2011P20932US 4622
28524 7590 10/30/2020
SIEMENS CORPORATION
IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244
3850 Quadrangle Blvd
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
LUONG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2020 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDER HANS VIJA, ANSGAR GRAW, and
DENNIS STEIBEL, JR.
____________

Appeal 2020-001333
Application 13/451,579
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Jan. 24, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 12–22.2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. is identified as the
real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed June 18, 2019,
hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 8 and 11 are canceled. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-001333
Application 13/451,579

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “methods, systems, and computer-
readable media for controlling a scanner of a medical imaging system.”
Spec. 2, para. 7.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a scanner configured to generate scan data of a patient
volume or area;
a processor configured to implement control operations,
the control operations being directed to acquisition of the scan
data;
a monitoring system comprising a range imaging camera
positioned for a field of view such that the monitoring system is
configured to capture spatial data indicative of relative
movement between the scanner and an object spaced from the
scanner; and
a memory in which scanner model data for the scanner
and human model data for a human skeletal model are stored,
the scanner model data being reflective of geometry of the
scanner;
wherein the processor is configured to implement an
analysis of the spatial data in conjunction with the scanner
model data and the human model data to identify the object as a
human body part foreign to the scanner based on the geometry
of the scanner via the scanner model data;
wherein the processor is configured to implement an
adjustment in the control operations based on the analysis.

Appeal 2020-001333
Application 13/451,579

3

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 10, 12–14, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu3 and
Bouvier.4
II. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and
Bonfiglio.5
III. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and
Mostafavi.6
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and
Klingenbeck-Regn.7

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, “a monitoring system
comprising a range imaging camera . . . . configured to capture spatial data.”
See Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). In a similar manner, independent claim
10 recites “capturing, with a range imaging camera, spatial data” and

3 Alexandrescu, US 6,272,368 B1, issued Aug. 7, 2001.
4 Bouvier et al., US 2008/0031413 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008.
5 Bonfiglio et al., US 2008/0253519 A1, published Oct. 16, 2008.
6 Mostafavi, US 6,937,696 B1, issued Aug. 30, 2005.
7Klingenbeck-Regn, US 2009/0015669 A1, published Jan. 15, 2009.
Appeal 2020-001333
Application 13/451,579

4

independent claim 17 recites “receive spatial data from a range imaging
camera.” Id. at 11, 12.
The Examiner finds that Alexandrescu discloses capturing spatial data
using range imaging camera 13. See Final Act. 2, 3 (citing Alexandrescu,
col. 4, ll. 31–33, Fig. 1).
Appellant argues that “the requisite spatial data [in Alexandrescu] is
not ‘captured with a range imaging camera.’” Appeal Br. 6. According to
Appellant, “the distance in Alexandrescu is calculated from the 3D
representation rather than received from a range imaging camera.” Id.
Alexandrescu discloses using a known triangular 3D technique to
calculate 3D data with respect to the positions of objects in a room.
Alexandrescu, col. 3, ll. 22–23. In particular, Alexandrescu describes
performing two-dimensional illumination of the room with light fan 15
emitted by light transmitter 12 and two dimensional scanning of the room
using video/CCD camera 13 to generate 3D spatial data by knowing the
distance 16 between light transmitter 12 and video/CCD camera 13 and
illumination angle 17. Id., col. 3, ll. 24–33, Fig. 2.
Although we appreciate that Alexandrescu discloses camera 13, the
Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Alexandrescu that discloses that
video/CCD camera 13 constitutes a “range imaging” camera. The Examiner
fails to adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
consider video/CCD camera 13 of Alexandrescu to be a “range imaging”
camera, as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 17.
Moreover, the Examiner’s construction of the limitation “range imaging
camera” as covering camera 13 of Alexandrescu, i.e., a video/CCD camera,
in effect renders meaningless, or superfluous, the phrase “range imaging.”
Appeal 2020-001333
Application 13/451,579

5

See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the
claim.).
We are further persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because, in
reviewing the record, we note that the Examiner’s Answer offers no rebuttal
to Appellant’s argument, and, thus, we essentially are left with an unrebutted
statement that claimed “spatial data” in Alexandrescu is not captured by “a
monitoring system comprising a range imaging camera,” as per claim 1, or
“with a range imaging camera,” as per claim 10, or “receive[d] . . . from a
range imaging camera,” as per claim 17.
As such, for the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that in
Alexandrescu “data indicative of ‘the distance of the objects from one
another’ is not captured with a range imaging camera.” Reply Brief (filed
Dec. 16, 2019, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1,
10, and 17, and their respective dependent claims 2–5 and 12–14, as
unpatentable over Alexandrescu and Bouvier.

Rejections II–IV
The Examiner’s use of the Bonfiglio, Mostafavi, and Klingenbeck-
Regn disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Alexandrescu discussed
supra. See Final Act. 4–5. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above,
we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 6,
15, and 19 as unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Bonfiglio; of
claims 7, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and
Appeal 2020-001333
Application 13/451,579

6

Mostafavi; and of claims 9, 18, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over
Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Klingenbeck-Regn.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10,
12–14, 17
103(a) Alexandrescu,
Bouvier
1–5, 10,
12–14, 17
6, 15, 19 103(a) Alexandrescu,
Bouvier, Bonfiglio
6, 15, 19
7, 16, 20 103(a) Alexandrescu,
Bouvier,
Mostafavi
7, 16, 20
9, 18, 21, 22 103(a) Alexandrescu,
Bouvier,
Klingenbeck-Regn
9, 18, 21, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9, 10,
12–22

REVERSED