Ex Parte Buurman

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2019

14006686 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/006,686 09/23/2013 Johannes Buurman
24737 7590 01/30/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00247WOUS 2963
EXAMINER
DEBROW, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES BUURMAN
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., SHARON PENICK, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to generating a report based on image data.
Specification 1. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed
limitation in italics.
1 Appellant, is the Applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief 2).
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
Illustrative Claim
1. A system for generating a report based on image data,
compnsmg
a template selector for selecting a template from a
plurality of templates, the template defining a structure for the
report and data fields to be filled in for the report, wherein the
template further defines view descriptors and associations
between the data fields and the view descriptors, wherein a
view descriptor defines an image type and a presentation mode
of the image type;
a data field presenter for presenting a representation of
the data fields of the template to a user,
a data field selector for selecting at least one of the data
fields;
an image dataset selector for automatically selecting at
least one image dataset of the image type defined by the view
descriptor associated with the selected, at least one, data field;
a view generator for automatically generating a view in
the presented representation of the data fields of the template of
the at least one selected image dataset based on the presentation
mode defined by the view descriptor associated with the
selected, at least one, data field;
a user input unit for enabling the user to provide input for
the content of the selected, at least one, data field during display
of the generated view;
a report generator for generating the report according to
the template from the data automatically included in the
presented representation of the data fields including the
generated views and the data provided by the user.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Reicher (US Patent Application Publication
2010/0138239 Al; published June 3, 2010). Final Action 2-5.
2
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Reicher and Ferrant (US Patent Application Publication
2006/0239522 Al; published October 26, 2006). Final Action 5-6.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 26, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
January 23, 2018), the Answer (mailed November 27, 2017) and the Final
Action ( mailed October 3, 2016) for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Appellant discloses:
• "The template may further define associations between data fields and
view descriptors, wherein a view descriptor defines an image type and
a presentation mode of the image type." Specification 5.
• "[A] measurement descriptor defines a measurement to be performed
on the image type associated with the data field. When the image
dataset selector 4 has selected an image dataset having that image
type, it becomes possible to perform such measurements
automatically or to initialize a software tool to facilitate the
measurement using that selected image dataset." Specification 7.
• Referring to Figure 3, "[t]he panel 302 on the right hand side shows
two views of image data, wherein the image data sets have been
automatically selected by the image dataset selector 4. The two slices
have been generated automatically by the view generator 5, and are
displayed automatically. Some of the data fields shown on the left
hand panel 301 may be filled in automatically, based on the
information already available from metadata of the images (for
example: MR field strength), or from information available in the
3
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
electronic health record (for example: date of birth)." Specification
9-10.
Appellant contends:
Independent claim 1 recites an image dataset selector for
automatically selecting at least one image dataset of the image
type defined by the view descriptor associated with the selected,
at least one, data field. The Office on page 3 of the Final Office
Action asserts [001 OJ and [0011] of Reicher. The Applicant
disagrees.
Appeal Brief 6.
Appellant acknowledges, "[i]n [0010], Reicher discloses, 'additional
fields [are] configured to receive data associated with second imaging data,'
and ' [ t ]he first imaging data, the second imaging data, and the second
medical form are concurrently displayed.' [underline added for emphasis]."
Appeal Brief 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner further finds, that Reicher "automatically
select[ s] at least one image dataset of the image type defined by the view
descriptor associated with the selected, at least one, data field ( 0041)."
Answer 3.
Appellant contends:
In [0041 ], Reicher discloses "each of the different
presentations of a particular examination as referred to herein as
'views' of the medical examination form." Reicher further
discloses in [0041] "In the example provided in FIG. lB, various
views are defined for the medical examination form 170: a
physician view 172, a technologist view 17 4, a nurse view 17 6,
and a billing view 178." Views are not reasonably interpreted as
image types to one of ordinary skill in the art, and Reicher does
4
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
not disclose image types. Moreover, the claim language
differentiates between views and image types.
Reply Brief 3.
Appellant concludes:
Reicher does not disclose, suggest, or imply selecting an
image data set of an image type defined by a view descriptor, i.e.
image type. The concurrent display of image data with the
medical report form, suggests that imaging data is not part of the
report form. Moreover, the disclosure of Reicher does not
disclose, suggest, or imply a view descriptor. Automatically
receiving data in a data field does not disclose, suggest, or imply
a view descriptor that defines an image type and a presentation
mode of the image type [antecedent basis]. Additionally, Reicher
does not disclose selecting image data. Hence, Reicher does not
set forth each and every element of claim 1 expressly or
inherently. Accordingly, the rejection for claim 1 and claims 2-9
and 12-13 dependent therefrom should be reversed.
Appeal Brief 7.
Reicher's disclosure of concurrently displaying image data with
medical report forms does not persuade us of Examiner error because claim
1 does not preclude displaying the image data concurrently with the medical
report forms. Reicher discloses "dynamic and customizable medical forms
may be automatically presented to users based on a predefined series of
rules." Abstract. Reicher further discloses in paragraph 10, "[t]he method
[ of providing dynamic medical examination forms] includes storing a first
medical examination form in a memory, the first medical examination form
comprising one or more data fields having data associated with first imaging
data generated for a first medical examination."
Appellant also acknowledges:
5
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
In [0011 ], Reicher discloses a "first medical examination form
comprising one or more data fields having data associated with
first imaging data generated for a first medical examination" and
a "second medical form comprising the data fields and data from
the first medical form, and further comprising additional data
fields configured to receive data associated with second imaging
data generated for a second medical examination."
Appeal Brief 6-7.
We find that Reicher discloses automatically generating medical
forms or reports based upon imaging data in the same manner as the claimed
invention with the exception that Reicher does not indicate that the type of
imaging data used for selection also consists of data pertaining to the image
type as required by both independent claims 1 and 10. "A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Consequently, we are constrained by the record, and we reverse the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-11 for the reasons stated
above.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
The obviousness rejection of dependent claims 12 and 23 are rejected
for the same reasons as stated in regard to the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10 stated above.
6
Appeal2018-002902
Application 14/006,686
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-11 is reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 13 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7