Ex Parte Bernard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12650070 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/650,070 12/30/2009
68174 7590 03/01/2016
GE HEALTHCARE
c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sylvain Bernard
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
231376-lXM
(GEMS:0498)
EXAMINER
6643
AMINI, JAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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 TR~ADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SYLVAIN BERNARD,
SERGE LOUIS WILFRID MULLER, VINCENT S. POLKUS,
and XAVIER BOUCHEVREAU
Appeal 2014-004693
Application 12/650,070
Technology Center 2600
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, and 25-27, which are all
pending claims. See Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-004693
Application 12/650,070
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "an integrated display, on a single
screen, of images obtained from multiple modalities used in screening a
subject." Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference:
1. A method of displaying image data of an imaged subject,
compnsmg:
displaying a first modality image on a screen of an image
review system;
receiving a user selection of an area of interest in the first
modality image, wherein the area of interest is a portion of the
first modality image that is less than the entirety of the first
modality image and that depicts an anatomic region;
displaying a second modality image on a screen of an
image review system, wherein the first modality image and the
second modality image each depict the anatomic region;
identifying a corresponding area of interest in the second
modality image that depicts the anatomic region; and
displaying the area of interest from the first modality
image over the corresponding area of interest in the second
modality image such that the corresponding area of interest in the
second modality image depicts the anatomic region as it appears
in the first modality image;
wherein the first modality image and the second modality
image are acquired from separate imaging systems of different
types.
The Examiner s Re} ection
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 8,160,314 B2;
Apr. 17, 2012). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2014-004693
Application 12/650,070
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We do not find the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1; however, we agree with Appellants'
arguments with respect to the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 27.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because Ramamurthy is directed to "displaying images taken at different
times on side-by-side screens," and "nothing in Ramamurthy teaches or
suggests that the images should be combined or that a particular portion of
one image should, or could, be displayed over the corresponding portion of
the second image." Br. 7. Appellants further contend "Ramamurthy teaches
away from such a modification by indicating that diagnosis and evaluation
of disease progression is improved by comparing the marked volume of
interest in the different images side-by-side." Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We
agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the rejection of claim 1, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The Examiner correctly finds Ramamurthy teaches identifying and
displaying areas of interest of first and second modality images. See Final
Act. 2-3 (citing Ramamurthy 3:9-20). We agree with the Examiner that it
would be obvious to one of skill in the art to display Ramamurthy's area of
interest from the first modality image "over" the corresponding area of
interest in the second modality image, as required by claim 1, because such
3
Appeal2014-004693
Application 12/650,070
modification is no "more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007); see also Final Act. 3--4. Similarly, we are not
persuaded that Ramamurthy's teachings, directed to medical diagnostics (see
Ramamurthy 2:31-34), discourages investigation into the claimed method.
See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not teach away, however, if it
merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the
invention claimed.")(citations removed). See Ans. 8.
Additionally, the Examiner finds Ramamurthy teaches or suggests the
use of "overlapping medical image[s]" is well-known in the art for
comparing patient scans, including medical images from "the same modality
(taken at a different time)." Ans. 7-8 (citing Ramamurthy 1:49---67); see
also Advisory Action 1. Appellants contend Ramamurthy discloses merely
"fused images," which "are a single image formed from fused data sets of
two whole images and are not analogous to" the claimed display, as "the
user input delineates a single area of interest in a single fused image." Br.
8.1
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the
disputed limitations are obvious in view of Ramamurthy's teaching of
1 Separately, we note Ramamurthy suggests various methods of combining
images. See, e.g., Ramamurthy 1 :41--45 ("the combination of such images
(via image fusion or image registration) using picture archiving
communications systems (P ACS) can often lead to additional clinical
information not apparent in the separate images."); see also Ramamurthy
8:40-57, 9:17-21.
4
Appeal2014-004693
Application 12/650,070
overlapping images. Ramamurthy, in the portion referenced by Appellants,
teaches identifying VO Is (i.e., areas of interest) around both first and second
images as well as a fused image. See Ramamurthy 10 :49--54 ("[ w ]hen a
user draws a VOI on, for example, a PET image, the VOI is automatically
copied onto a CT image at the appropriate voxel coordinate obtained by
applying transformations using the registration results between PET and CT
images. Further, the VOI may be displayed on fused images."); see also
Br. 8.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
teachings of Ramamurthy (see, e.g., Ramamurthy 1 :49--67, 3 :9--20) to
perform the recited method of displaying image data of an imaged subject,
"so that medical practitioners can make better-informed diagnostic, therapy
and follow-up decisions in a cost-effective and efficient manner." Final Act.
3--4; see also Ans. 7-8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, 25, and 26,
which are not separately argued. See Br. 9.
B. Dependent Claim 2 7
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 27,
because:
Br. 9.
Ramamurthy does not describe that the display can be updated
as recited in claim 27. In rejecting claim 27, the Examiner refers
to a portion of Ramamurthy that merely relates to tracking
changes in the image over time and comparing the images that
are generated over time. Final Office Action, p. 6 (citing
Ramamurthy, col. 11, 11. 19--29).
5
Appeal2014-004693
Application 12/650,070
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Ramamurthy teaches or suggests the limitations of dependent claim 27 by
citing to a portion of the reference directed to calculating tracked changes
and quantifications of marked VO Is. See Final Act. 6 (citing Ramamurthy
11: 19--29). The Examiner, however, has not explained how such
calculations relate to the limitations of claim 27. Rather, we agree with
Appellants that this portion of Ramamurthy does not teach or suggest
updating the display of the area of interest in response to an update user
selection of the area of interest in the first image. See Br. 9. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 27. See In re
Kahn, 441 F .3d 977, 988 (2006) ("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness").
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18,
25, and 26.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6