Masahiko Yamazaki et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14738207 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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