Ex Parte Hardy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

10955630 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JUDSON HARDY,
WILLIAM THOMAS DIXON, and XULI ZONG
____________________

Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, HYUN J. JUNG, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christopher Judson Hardy et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
l. A method for acquiring black-blood images using a
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system and a double
inversion recovery (DIR) imaging pulse sequence for obtaining
a first level of nulling of a blood signal from acquired imaging
slices, the method comprising:
changing a respective time order of the imaging slices at
a selected point or points during the pulse sequence to obtain a
second level of nulling of the residual blood signal from the
imaging slices.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Fuderer
Foo
Chapman
US 5,561,370
US 6,498,946 B1
US 6,697,507 B1
Oct. 1, 1996
Dec. 24, 2002
Feb. 24, 2004
Rejections
Appellants request our review of the following rejections:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 15-20, 28, 29, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foo and Chapman.
The Examiner rejected claims 8-14, 21-27, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Foo, Chapman, and Fuderer.

Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
3
OPINION
Obviousness based on Foo and Chapman
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 15, and 28 and their
dependent claims together as a group. App. Br. 10. Thus, we decide the
appeal of the rejection of claims 1-7, 15-20, 28, 29, and 31 as unpatentable
over Foo and Chapman on the basis of claim 1. Claims 2-7, 15-20, 28, 29,
and 31 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner determined that the combined teachings of Foo and
Chapman render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Ans. 3-5.
Appellants argue that “Foo discloses obtaining a single level of
nulling only,” and thus “fails to teach or suggest using a double inversion
recovery (DIR) pulse sequence and obtaining two levels of nulling in the
residual blood as recited in claims 1, 15 and 28.” App. Br. 8.
This argument does not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection,
because the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on Foo for a disclosure of
obtaining two levels of nulling. See Ans. 3-4. Rather, the Examiner’s
rejection relies on a combination of Foo (disclosing the double inversion
recovery (DIR) imaging pulse sequence for obtaining a first level of nulling)
and Chapman (teaching that it “is known in the art to reverse the time order
in a number of averaged acquisitions such that odd lines and even lines are
sampled in opposite directions for different halves of k-space” and
disclosing using phase corrections to correct artifacts due to motion). Ans.
4-5. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
4
Appellants assert that “[t]he Examiner states that Chapman discloses
the use of a double inversion recovery (DIR) pulse sequence for the
acquisition of the images and obtaining two levels of nulling of the blood
signal.” App. Br. 9; see also id.at 10 (arguing that Chapman does not
indicate the use of a DIR imaging pulse sequence). Appellants’ assertion is
incorrect. The Examiner did not make such a statement. Once again,
Appellants attempt to attack the disclosures of Foo and Chapman
individually, rather than as combined by the Examiner.
Appellants additionally argue that because Chapman’s invention is not
related to acquisition of black blood images, Chapman thus “fails to disclose
changing a respective time order of the imaging slices at a selected point or
points during the pulse sequence to obtain a second level of nulling of the
residual blood signal from the imaging slices.” App. Br. 10. Further,
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine the “multi-
slice fast spin echo image acquisition with black blood contrast of Foo with
the ghost artifact reduction in image data of Chapman” and that, even if they
were combined, the method of claim 1 would not result. Id. For the reasons
that follow, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to combine
the technique of reversing the time order in a number of averaged
acquisitions such that odd lines and even lines are sampled in opposite
directions for different halves of k-space with phase correction taught by
Chapman with the DIR method of Foo “to reduce artifacts without requiring
extra data to be acquired and to reduce operator interaction in reducing
ghost artifacts, as taught by Chapman.” Ans. 5, 8. The reason for the
combination articulated by the Examiner is supported by Chapman, and has
Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
5
rational underpinnings. See Chapman, col. 1, l. 46 - col. 2, l. 4 (teaching that
time reversal of the acquired data in MRI techniques was known in the art);
col. 7, ll. 16-26 (discussing time reversal of data in alternate k-space lines);
col. 7, l. 60 –col. 8, l. 3 (discussing the importance of phase alignment to
avoid or eliminate ghost artifact); col. 8, ll. 42-65 (teaching that ghost
artifact is eliminated when the sample points are perfectly aligned with the
phase encode axis, but incomplete ghost cancellation results when there is
temporal displacement); col. 3, ll. 12-23 (teaching that analyzing the data to
determine the correction can accomplish ghost artifact reduction regardless
of the origin of the artifact); col. 9, l. 5 – col. 11, l. 52 (teaching various
techniques to determine the phase correction and reduce ghost artifact); col.
1, ll. 31-39 (disclosing that periodic movements, as from beating of the
heart, are a known source of periodic variation in the sampled data that can
give rise to ghost artifacts); col. 13, ll. 20-22 (teaching that the disclosed
time order reversal/phase correction techniques are applicable to remove or
reduce artifacts from “localized effects within the imaging field, such as
motion artifact”).
In making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not
limit ourselves to looking only at the problem the applicant was trying to
solve. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). The
problem motivating an applicant may be only one of many addressed by the
subject matter of the application. Id. The fact that Chapman does not
explicitly discuss black blood contrast or nulling of the blood signal from the
imaging slices does not detract from Chapman’s teachings to apply the
known time order reversal of a number of averaged acquisitions such that
odd lines and even lines are sampled in opposite directions for different
halves of k-space with phase correction to remove ghost artifact. Moreover,
Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
6
Chapman teaches that the disclosed method for reducing ghost artifact in
image data “is applicable to any imaging technique in which a coherent or
pseudo-coherent ghost artifact occurs, regardless of the origin of the ghost
artifact.” Col. 2, ll. 9-12.
With respect to Appellants’ argument that no reasonable combination
of Foo and Chapman would obtain Appellants’ recited invention, the
Examiner explained that
Chapman teaches artifact reduction for periodic motion and
further teaches changing a respective time order of the imaging
slices (col. 1, l. 6- col. 2, l. 4). In changing the time order of the
imaging slices as taught by Chapman ‘507, which intrinsically
samples data at periodic variations, the combination of Foo and
Chapman inherently obtains second level of nulling by
switching the read direction between positive and negative
while periodically varying the sampling.
Fin. Rej. 2-3.
Further, the Examiner found that Chapman discloses the kind of time
order change disclosed by Appellants in paragraphs [0026] and [0027] of
their Specification. Ans. 8. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
finding. In paragraph [0027], Appellants disclose that “the time order is
changed by reversing a time order for signals acquired in a top half of k
space relative to signals acquired in a bottom half of k space” resulting in “a
phase twist in the residual blood signal relative to the signal from
surrounding static tissue” which “can be used to suppress the blood signal.”
The Examiner’s undisputed finding that Chapman discloses the kind of time
order change disclosed by Appellants as resulting in a phase twist in the
residual blood signal relative to the signal from surrounding static tissue that
can be used to suppress the blood signal provides sufficient basis to
reasonably support the Examiner’s determination that combination of
Appeal 2010-006323
Application 10/955,630
7
Chapman’s time order change technique with Foo’s DIR imaging pulse
sequence for obtaining a first level of nulling would inherently result in the
method recited in claim 1, including “changing a respective time order . . . to
obtain a second level of nulling of the residual blood signal from the
imaging slices,” thereby shifting the burden to Appellants to prove that this
is not the case. Appellants have not come forth with any evidence or
technical reasoning to discharge this burden.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not identify error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Foo and Chapman.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-7, 15-20, 28, 29, and 31,
which stand or fall with claim 1.
Obviousness based on Foo, Chapman, and Fuderer
Appellants rely on their arguments asserted against the rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, and 28 in contesting the rejection of dependent
claims 8-14, 21-27, and 30. App. Br. 11. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claims 8-14, 21-27, and 30 as unpatentable over Foo, Chapman, and Fuderer
for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-31 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh