Masahiko Yamazaki et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201914738207 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/738,207 06/12/2015 Masahiko YAMAZAKI 455365US20X CONT 8400 22850 7590 09/03/2019 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER DEMETER, HILINA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com patentdocket@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MASAHIKO YAMAZAKI, KOICHI SATO, TAKASHI KURIHARA, YUKI KATO, and TAKAHITO WATANABE ____________ Appeal 2018-008514 Application 14/738,207 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 17, and 19–24, which constitute all the pending claims in this Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2018-008514 Application 14/738,207 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a medical image diagnostic apparatus and “which can execute enlargement reconstruction for a medical image without performing cumbersome operations” (Spec. 3:21– 23). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A medical image diagnostic apparatus, comprising: a display; and processing circuitry configured to acquire data concerning an interior of an object, reconstruct a first image concerning the object based on the acquired data, display the reconstructed first image in a display area of the display, enlarge a portion of the first image in the display area in accordance with an enlargement ratio set by an enlarging operation by an operator, and in response to the enlargement ratio exceeding a predetermined value, determine, as an enlargement reconstruction range, an area of the enlarged portion of the first image displayed in the display area, reconstruct a second image corresponding to the determined enlargement reconstruction range based on a subset of the acquired data, and Appeal 2018-008514 Application 14/738,207 3 display the reconstructed second image in the display area. App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is the following: Toki US 2005/0063611 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 Nishide US 2007/0258558 A1 Nov. 8, 2007 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 4–8, 17, and 19–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Toki, in view of Nishide. Final Act. 2–3. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Toki and Nishide teaches or suggests the limitations of in response to the enlargement ratio exceeding a predetermined value, determine, as an enlargement reconstruction range, an area of the enlarged portion of the first image displayed in the display area, as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 17. Appeal 2018-008514 Application 14/738,207 4 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that [Nishide] says nothing regarding an enlargement ratio set by an operator exceeding a predetermined value. In particular, the monitor scan in [Nishide] Figure 30 merely examines pixel values in a particular region to see if they reach a certain value following the contrast agent injection (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted)). Appellants contend that “[Nishide] is cited only because the Examiner needed a reference in the medical imaging arts that contained the word ‘threshold,’ regardless of the context or combinability with the teachings of [Toki]” (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted)). We agree that Nishide’s threshold is unrelated to an enlargement ratio set by an operator. The Examiner finds that Nishide “teach[es] the overall concept of having a threshold value which could be exceeded to process the image by enlargement reconstruction” (Ans. 3 (citing Nishide ¶ 8)) and that “as shown in FIG. 38B, a tomogram image reconstructable range can be extended outside by half an X-ray since Toki explains in detail about enlarged reconstruction of an image” (Ans. 3). However, the threshold used for Nishide’s “reconstructable range” is used as part of the scanning process in order to “mak[e] the best use of an X- ray radiation range and realize a reduction in exposure” (Nishide ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see also Nishide ¶ 483, describing Fig. 38B), and is unrelated to the reconstructions made after scanning is completed, as performed by Appellants’ claimed apparatus. (See also Nishide, Fig. 30 (cited at Ans. 3) in which “Threshold Value” at step M68 is determined prior to performance of “Actual Scan” started at step M70). Appeal 2018-008514 Application 14/738,207 5 Further, while Toki mentions “enlargement ratio[s]” in the context of reconstructing an image using “super-resolution processing” (Toki ¶ 36), Toki contains no teaching or suggestion that the decision to determine an enlargement reconstruction range is based on the enlargement ratio. Rather, the enlargement ratio appears to depend on the reconstructed field of view (“FOV”) (see Toki ¶ 36). Thus, the references, when combined, do not teach or suggest in response to the enlargement ratio exceeding a predetermined value, determine, as an enlargement reconstruction range, an area of the enlarged portion of the first image displayed in the display area. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim independent claims 1 and 17, as well as dependent claims 4–8 and 19–24. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Toki and Nishide teaches or suggests the limitations of in response to the enlargement ratio exceeding a predetermined value, determine, as an enlargement reconstruction range, an area of the enlarged portion of the first image displayed in the display area, as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 17. Appeal 2018-008514 Application 14/738,207 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–8, 17, and 19–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation