Michael SchaufDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 5, 201913812557 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation