Ex Parte Schaefer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 28, 2019

14378179 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/378,179 08/12/2014 Dirk Schaefer 24737 7590 04/01/2019 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. 2011P02263WOUS 3736 EXAMINER SAKAMOTO, COLIN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 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 DIRK SCHAEFER, AXEL THRAN, and THOMAS KOEHLER Appeal2018---006479 Application 14/378, 179 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-006479 Application 14/378, 179 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-12. Claim 7 was cancelled during prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to spectral imaging and more particularly to determining a suitable tube voltage for a spectral volume scan based on two or more two-----dimensional (2D) projection scans (scanograms) performed at two or more kVps from approximately the same acquisition view." Spec. 1, 11. 1-5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An imaging system, comprising: a radiation source configured to switch between at least two different peak emission voltages (kVps) and emit radiation that traverses an examination region and a portion of a subject therein, wherein the emitted radiation has an energy spectrum corresponding to the peak emission voltage; a console configured to receive an input to set the at least two peak emission voltages for a 2D projection scan; a detector array configured to detect radiation emitted by the radiation source that traverses the examination region and the portion of the subject therein and generate a signal indicative thereof, which includes attenuation values; and a processor configured to decompose a set of attenuation values generated for the 2D projection scan into a first set of attenuation values for a first of the at least two different peak emission voltages and a second set of attenuation values for a second of the at least two different peak emission voltages and recommend a set of at least the two peak emission voltages for a volume scan performed with the radiation source and detector array. 2 Appeal2018-006479 Application 14/378, 179 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1---6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 112(a) or first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 2. ANALYSIS The Examiner's sole basis for rejecting the claims at issue is lack of written description support due to the claims allegedly lacking "any algorithm that sufficiently describes- given an input ... -how to arrive at the output ... from the input." Final Act. 3. The Examiner appears to require the Specification to disclose an equation or formula in order to satisfy the requirement of an algorithm, but this is not necessary. See Ans. 5, 8-12. As noted by Appellants, all that is required is "the necessary steps and/or flow charts that perform the claimed invention. Reply Br. 2 ( citing MPEP Â§2161); Appeal Br. 3 (same). We agree with Appellants that "the specification recites an algorithm that describes, given an input (two sets of attenuation values), how the processor arrives at the output (recommending two peak emission voltages) as the specification describes the steps needed to obtain the output based on the input." App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants are correct that the Specification discloses an algorithm via the four necessary steps to arrive at a recommended scan parameter and therefore adequately describes how to recommend a set of at least two peak emission voltages as claimed. Reply Br. at 3. It is unclear from the Examiner's rejection how this is an insufficient description of the requisite algorithm or the claimed invention. 3 Appeal2018-006479 Application 14/378, 179 Furthermore, the Examiner appears to acknowledge that had Appellants disclosed an LUT/map then the algorithm would be sufficiently disclosed. Ans. 13. We agree with Appellants that "the contents of the map/LUT is disclosed (the map is based on a predetermined tradeoff between risk of photon starvation and spectral performance)." Reply Br. 3; see Appeal Br. 3--4 (citing Spec. 4:16-5:17). As such, the rejection is also improper for this reason. The Specification adequately describes to a person of ordinary skill in the art how to decompose a set of attenuation values generated for the 2D projection scan and recommend a set of at least the two peak emission voltages for a volume scan performed with the radiation source and detector array" as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 and 8-12. REVERSED 4