Ex Parte Weng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

13097245 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

United States Patent 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.
13/097,245 04/29/2011 De He Weng PI 1,0106 (26965-4645) 6153
26574 7590 12/01/2016
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
YANG, WEI WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
patents-CH @ schiffhardin.com
jbombien @ schiffhardin. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DE HE WENG
Appeal 2014-008569
Application 13/097,2451
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—8, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed invention relates to a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
method for achieving water-fat separation and reducing the degree of
1 Appellant identifies Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-008569
Application 13/097,245
sensitivity to motion. Abstract. Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and
reads as follows (with the disputed limitations in italics):
1. A magnetic resonance (MR) imaging method for achieving
water-fat separation, the method comprising:
operating an MR data acquisition unit to execute a three-
point Dixon technique and utilizing a BLADE artifact correction
track to acquire original data for one in-phase image of said
three-point Dixon technique and original data for two out-of-
phase images of said three-point Dixon technique;
in a processor, reconstructing the in-phase image on the
basis of said original data of the in-phase image, and utilizing
said original data for the in-phase image to perform phase
correction on said original data for the out-of-phase images to
obtain phase-corrected data, and reconstructing the out-of-phase
images from said phase-corrected data; and
in said processor, calculating images of water and fat
based on said in-phase image and said out-of-phase images, and
making said images of water and fat available from said
processor.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, and 6—8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Eggers et al. (WO 2008/135885 Al; publ. Nov. 13,
2008) (“Eggers”), Wang et al. (US 2006/0241381 Al; publ. Oct. 26, 2006),
and Ma (US 2010/0195885 Al; publ. Aug. 5, 2010). Final Act. 7-14.
Claim 2, 3, and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eggers, Wang, Ma, and James G. Pipe, Motion Correction
with PROPELLER MRL: Application to Head Motion and Free-Breathing
Cardiac Imaging, 42 Magn. Reson. Med., 963—69 (1999). Final Act. 14—18.
2
Appeal 2014-008569
Application 13/097,245
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and highlight the
following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 4, and 6—8
Appellant argues the foregoing claims as a group, and chooses claim 1
as representative of the group. App. Br. 12; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art (and
specifically, the combination of Eggers with Wang) teaches utilizing a
BLADE artifact correction track “to acquire original data for one in-phase
image of [a] three-point Dixon technique and original data for two out-of­
phase images of [a] three-point Dixon technique,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 2—7. Specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he Eggers et al. reference
does not disclose the acquisition of MR data using any type of Dixon
technique, and thus does not disclose the acquisition of original data ... in a
Dixon technique” as required by the claim. Id. at 3. We are not persuaded.
The Examiner relies not on Eggers alone, but on the combination of
Eggers with Wang as teaching the disputed limitation.2 As the Examiner
finds, Wang teaches the “Dixon method” is a well-known MRI technique for
2 The Ma reference, which the Examiner finds teaches the limitation
“making said images of water and fat available from said processor” (Final
Act. 11), is not at issue in this appeal (App. Br. 8).
3
Appeal 2014-008569
Application 13/097,245
obtaining images of water and fat. Ans. 12—13 (citing Wang || 6, 13). A
three-point Dixon method, as taught in Wang, involves “acquiring one in-
phase image and two opposite-phase images,” as recited in claim 1. Ans.
13; Wang | 6. As the Examiner further finds, Eggers teaches (in the context
of operating an MR data acquisition unit, as claimed) “utilizing a BLADE
artifact correction track to [Jacquire/generate original MR data for one in-
phase image and original data for two out-of-phase images.” Ans. 12—13
(citing Eggers 3^4).3 Appellant argues (App. Br. 4), the “in-phase” and
“out-of-phase” images in Eggers are not the same as those in a three-point
Dixon method, but this argument misconstrues the Examiner’s rejection. As
the Examiner finds (Ans. 12—13), the combination of Wang’s teaching of the
three-point Dixon method with Eggers’ MR acquisition unit teaches the
disputed limitation. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination).
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in finding a “suggestion
or motivation to combin[e]” Eggers and Wang. App. Br. 8—12. Again, we
are unpersuaded. The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, the
references are “in the same field of endeavor: [acquiring MR signal data of
species such as water and fat[,] and reconstruction [of] MR images.” Ans.
15. Moreover, both references address the same problem of correcting for
3 Eggers refers to “PROPELLER” sequence rather than “BLADE,” but
Appellant and the Examiner treat the terms as synonymous. App. Br. 3
(“use of a BLADE (or PROPELLER) sequence”); Ans. 12
(“BLADE/PROPELLER techniques”).
4
Appeal 2014-008569
Application 13/097,245
error in such images, and both do so at least partly through the use of phase-
contrast (comparing in-phase and out-of-phase images). Ans. 12; see
Innovention Toys, LLCv. MCA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322—23 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (rationale to combine may be found in references sharing the
“same purpose,” “goal,” or “objective”). Indeed, Eggers teaches the
BLADE/PROPELLER techniques discussed therein are (like Wang’s
method) “advantageous for phase-contrast [image] acquisition[].” Eggers 4;
Ans. 12
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, and
6—8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eggers, Wang,
and Ma.
Claims 2, 3, and 5
Appellant argues claims 2, 3 and 5 are allowable for the same reasons
as claim 1, and that Pipe does not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 12—13. Because we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellant’s argument regarding the
remaining claims also is unpersuasive of error. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eggers, Wang, Ma, and Pipe.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5