Michael Schauf

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 5, 2019

13812557 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 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.
13/812,557 04/09/2013 Michael Schauf 2010P00883WOUS 9868
24737 7590 09/05/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL SCHAUF

____________

Appeal 2019-000441
Application 13/812,557
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Anderson (WO 2009/044316 A1, pub. Apr. 9, 2009), Torp
(US 6,227,075 B1, iss. Aug. 21, 2001) and Frisa (US 6,709,394 B2, iss.
Mar. 23, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000441
Application 13/812,557
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to ultrasonic diagnostic imaging
systems. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system for automated
acquisition of a sequence of biplane images of progressively
different image plane orientations, the system comprising:
an ultrasound probe including a two dimensional matrix
array transducer;
a controller which is configured to control the probe to
acquire biplane images of different image orientations;
a user control operable by a user to command the controller
to acquire a biplane image pair including a first image in a
stationary reference image plane and a second image in a
variable orientation image plane, wherein the user control is
further operable, after displaying the biplane image pair, to:
receive user input to change an orientation of the variable
orientation image plane of the second displayed image relative
to the stationary reference image plane of the first displayed
image to select a starting image plane;
command the controller to acquire a sequence of the biplane
image pairs, wherein the variable orientation image plane of
the second image is progressively swept through a range of
different orientations, starting from the starting image plane,
during acquisition of the sequence of the biplane image pairs,
and wherein the stationary reference image plane of the first
image is unaltered during acquisition of the sequence of
biplane image pairs;
command the controller to selectively discard the first
image in the stationary reference image plane of each biplane
image pair in the sequence; and
command the controller to selectively store, independent of
the first image, the second image in the variable orientation
image plane of each biplane image pair in the sequence; and
a display for displaying one or more images of the
sequence.
Appeal 2019-000441
Application 13/812,557
3
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except for selectively discarding the first image, for
which the Examiner relies on Torp. Final Action 2–3. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Anderson to selectively
discard the first image. Id. at 3. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to allow the user to visualize
only images where filters have been applied, which allows for higher
contrast and definition. Id. The Examiner finds that Frisa teaches such
operations using biplane images. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Anderson to operate on biplane images. Id.
at 4. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have done this to improve volumetric image viewing in real time. Id.
Appellant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the “selectively
discard” limitation of claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–7. According to Appellant,
Torp, at best, merely explains that some filter output samples might be
discarded in connection with a high-pass filtering process. Id. at 8.
In response, the Examiner maintains that that the term “selectively
discarding” is a conditional statement meaning that, under given
circumstances, a first image is discarded. Ans. 3. The Examiner states that
Appellant does not claim that only the first image in a sequence is deleted.
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Torp teaches that discarding conditions
may be applied in different situations dependent on what type of filter is
Appeal 2019-000441
Application 13/812,557
4
used. Id. The Examiner maintains that since Appellant's claim is silent to
these additional conditions, Appellant’s this argument is irrelevant to what
Torp actually teaches regarding “selectively discarding the first image . . .”
Id.
In reply, Appellant points that the term “selectively discarding the
first image” is in the context of the first image being “in the stationary
reference image plane of each biplane image pair in the sequence.” Reply
Br. 2. Appellant maintains that Torp fails to teach selectively discarding
images in the specific context required by the claim. Id.
In construing claims, we cannot look at the ordinary meaning of a
term in a vacuum. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Unifrax I
LLC, 921 F.3d 1060, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Construing claim terms without
considering the context in which those terms appear is not reasonable.
Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant’s invention is directed to an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging
system for automated acquisition of a “sequence” of biplane images. Claims
App., claim 1 preamble. The system controller of the claimed system
acquires biplane image “pairs” that include: (1) a first image in a stationary
reference image plane; and (2) a second image in a variable orientation
image plane. See claim 1. The system controller further acquires a
“sequence” of biplane image pairs. Id. The controller then selectively
discards the “first image” . . . of “each” pair in the sequence. Id.
With respect to discarding ultrasound images used in medical
diagnoses, Torp teaches:
At the start of the continuous stream of samples, some of
the filter output samples might have to be discarded, causing
a small delay before the first image frame is available. If an
Appeal 2019-000441
Application 13/812,557
5
FIR filter is used, the first K images, where K is the FIR filter
order, must be discarded. If an HR filter is used, several
initialization techniques exist to suppress the filter transient,
but some of the first images may have to be discarded. To
synchronize the flow and tissue images, an equal number of
tissue images need to be discarded.
Torp, col. 5, ll. 57–65.
Although the Examiner is correct in finding that Torp selectively
discards certain images, the Examiner errs in finding that Torp selectively
discards the first/reference plane image of “each” pair in a sequence of pairs.
The Examiner’s position is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence and, accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2–6 and 8–17
Claims 2–6 and 17 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim from
claim 1. Claims App. Claim 9 is an independent claim that is substantially
similar in scope to claim 1. Id. Claims 10–16 depend, directly or indirectly,
from claim 9. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the
same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for
essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–6 and 8–17.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6 and 8–12 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED