Ex Parte Hautvast et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2016

12598534 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT 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. 12/598,534 11102/2009 Guillaume Leopold Theodorus Frederik Hautvast 2007P01093WOUS 1043 38107 7590 03/25/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P. 0. Box 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 EXAMINER REYES, REGINALD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2016 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): debbie.henn@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte GUILLAUME LEOPOLD THEODORUS FREDERIK HAUTV AST and MARCEL BREEUWER Appeal2013-010839 1 Application 12/598,5342 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Mar. 26, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 24, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 30, 2012). 2 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2013-010839 Application 12/598,534 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention "relates to a method for analyzing a multidimensional cardiac image set." Spec. 1, 11. 2-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for analyzing a multidimensional cardiac image set, the multidimensional cardiac image set comprising: a first image set of a heart; and a second image set of a heart, wherein the first and second image sets are different image sets, the first image set is segmented resulting into respective first cardiac contours for each image within the first image set; and the second image set is segmented resulting into respective second cardiac contours for each image within the second image set, the method compnsmg: determining, by a processor, resulting cardiac contours for each image within the first image set and for each image within the second image set from the first cardiac contours and the second cardiac contours. REJECTIONS Claims 1-8, 13-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Murphy (US 7,327,862 B2, iss. Feb. 5, 2008) and Torp (US 2002/0177775 Al, pub. Nov. 28, 2002). Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Murphy, Torp, and Paragios (US 2003/0053667 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2003). 2 Appeal2013-010839 Application 12/598,534 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2--8, 21, and 22 We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because Murphy does not disclose or suggest "determining, by a processor, resulting cardiac contours for each image within the first image set and for each image within the second image set from the first cardiac contours and the second cardiac contours," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5---6. The Examiner cites Murphy at column 14, lines 28-32 and column 19, lines 19-33 as disclosing the argued limitation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Murphy does not explicitly teach "the first and second image sets are different image sets." Id. And the Examiner relies on Torp to cure the deficiency. Id. (citing Torp, Fig. 9, i-f 128). Murphy relates generally to systems for identifying the structural elements that contribute to the cardiac performance of an individual patient through the use of imaging methods. Murphy, col. 1, 11. 18-21. During an SVR procedure surgeons must determine the demarcation between viable and akinetic tissue. Id. col. 14, 11. 15-17. A model may be created by combining images from MRI or echocardiography to create an image showing which areas are akinetic or dyskinetic. Id. col. 14, 11. 17-27. In particular, images at the end of systole and the diastole are identified and overlaid by aligning markers that do not move, such as the aortic valve annulus. Id. col. 14, 27-31. A grid pattern is superimposed on the images and each intersection of the grid that intersects the epicardium and endocardium is identified. Id. col. 14, 11. 30-33. 3 Appeal2013-010839 Application 12/598,534 Claim 1 of the Murphy reference recites a method of creating a second image of a heart from a plurality of images of heart tissue that includes creating endocardial and epicardial left ventricle wall contours, segmenting at least a portion of left ventrical wall endocardial contours of at least two of the images into endocardial wall points; segmenting at least a portion of left ventrical wall epicardial contours of at least two images into epicardial wall points, and using the endocardial wall points and epicardial wall points to create a model. Id. col. 19, 11. 13-32. Appellants assert that Murphy does not disclose "determining, by a processor, resulting cardiac contours for each image within the first image set and for each image within the second image setfrom the first cardiac contours and the second cardiac contours," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5 (emphasis in original). In response, the Examiner explains that Murphy's claim 1 recites using a plurality of first images provided to a computer system to create contours, thereby disclosing the argued limitation. Ans. 3 (citing Murphy, col. 19, 11. 13-32). But we fail to see, and the Examiner does not explain, how creating contours from a plurality of images provided to the computer system, as disclosed by Murphy, discloses or suggests "determining ... resulting contours ... from the first cardiac contours and the second cardiac contours," as recited in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-8, 21, and 22, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Independent claims 13 and 18 and dependent claims 14-17 Independent claims 13 and 18 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1, and are rejected based on the same rationale 4 Appeal2013-010839 Application 12/598,534 applied with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claims 13 and 18, and claims 14--1 7, which depend from claim 13, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Dependent claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 each depends from one of independent claims 1 and 18. The Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 based on Paragios, in combination with Murphy and Torp, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of the independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9, 10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 5