Siemens Healthcare GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020002085 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
15/492,589 04/20/2017 Feng Qiu 2017P01649US 1114
28524 7590 06/02/2021
SIEMENS CORPORATION
IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244
3850 Quadrangle Blvd
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
MARTELLO, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENG QIU, WEI HONG, and DAPHNE YU
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens
Healthcare GmbH. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to medical imaging and more specifically, to
methods and systems “for generating photorealistic views of an internal
object using lightmaps,” where “[m]ultiple lightmaps may be placed and
used together with optional synthetic lighting and path tracing-based
rendering in order to enable photorealistic, in-context internal views.” See
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for rendering a three-dimensional
volume, the method comprising:
acquiring scan data representing an object inside of a
patient;
identifying in the scan data, a boundary of the object;
providing a first lightmap inside the boundary of the
object;
providing a second lightmap outside the boundary of the
object; and
rendering the three-dimensional volume of the object
from the scan data with lighting based on the first lightmap and
second lightmap.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Serra US 2005/0119550 A1 June 2, 2005
Wahrenberg US 2014/0232719 Al Aug. 21, 2014

Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3 and 5–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and
102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wahrenberg. Final Act. 3–11.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahrenberg and Serra. Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds paragraphs 9, 54, 62, 63, 72,
140–142, 145, 146, among other paragraphs, of Boswell disclose the recited
method steps of rendering a three-dimensional volume. Final Act. 3–4.
With respect to the recited step of “providing a first lightmap inside the
boundary of the object” and “providing a second lightmap outside the
boundary of the object,” the Examiner makes the following findings based
on Wahrenberg’s disclosure:
[P]roviding a first lightmap (‘719; ¶ 0032; ¶ 0039; ¶ 0045;
¶ 0054–0058; virtual light source inside the heart; voxels set to
act as a light source - lightmaps) inside the boundary of the
object (‘719; figs. 1, 2, 4 and 13; ¶ 0032; ¶ 0059–0063; ¶ 0070;
¶ 0074; boundary of the tissue of interest); providing a second
lightmap (‘719; ¶ 0039; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0054–0058; voxels set to act
as a light source - lightmaps) outside the boundary of the object
(‘719; figs. 1, 2 and 4; ¶ 0059–0065; ¶ 0070–0074; at least one
additional light source remote from the tissue of interest to
provide general illumination of the scene).
Final Act. 4 (emphases added). With respect to the recited step of
“rendering the three-dimensional volume of the object from the scan data
with lighting based on the first lightmap and second lightmap,” the
Examiner finds the above-cited paragraphs disclose rendering an image from
the scan data with lighting that is based on the first and second lightmaps
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

4
“from the perspective of a view point or view plane by calculating how light
travels from the light source voxel(s) through the tissue of interest to the
view point or view plane using an optical model which includes scattering
and absorption.” Id. (citing Wahrenberg ¶¶ 47, 141, 156). The Examiner
concludes that “these features are interconnected by a local area network
(LAN) 25” and receives lighting information based on the first lightmap
(mapped to the “virtual light source inside the heart”) and the second
lightmap (mapped to “voxels set to act as a light source”). Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant contends the cited portions of Wahrenberg do not teach the
recited features of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–11. Appellant specifically argues
that “[t]he Examiner has misconstrued the definition of a lightmap.” Id. at 3.
According to Appellant:
The term “lightmap” is a well-used and well-defined
term in the art. A typical definition may be: “[a] lightmap is a
data structure used in lightmapping, a form of surface caching
in which the brightness of surfaces in a virtual scene is pre-
calculated and stored in texture maps for later use” (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightmap) or “Lightmapping is
the process of pre-calculating the brightness of surfaces in a
Scene, and storing the result in a chart or ‘lightmap’ for later
use” (see https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/Lightmapping.html)
or “A lightmap or lighting map is a bitmap that stores the
lighting levels (intensity and color) falling on an object in the
scene.” (see
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3dsmax/learn-explore/
caas/CloudHelp/ cloudhelp/2016/ENU /3DSMax/files/GUID-
A9C3 AD07-E019-4D57-BE84-FEB6306BC672-htm.html).
The plain meaning of the term “lightmap” is a texture map that
stores the brightness or lighting levels of a surface, not any just
any point source of light.
Id. at 5. Appellant further asserts that the above-cited definitions of a
“lightmap” is supported by the cited paragraphs 39 and 43–45 of the
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

5
Specification. Id. at 7. Based on the above-cited definitions, Appellant
argues that the cited portions of Wahrenberg do not disclose a lightmap, “but
rather each of these paragraphs describe using a light source voxel as a light
source.” Id. at 9.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds the claimed “lightmap” is a broad
term and further cites paragraphs 39 and 44 of Appellant’s disclosure. Ans.
4. The Examiner concludes that “there are at least two different concepts
presented for a ‘lightmap’” in those paragraphs, which indicates that “the
claims at issue do not limit the lightmap feature to only the texture map
concept as is argued in this Appeal.” Id. at 4, 5.
The issue before us is whether Wahrenberg describes using the first
lightmap inside the boundary and the second lightmap outside the boundary
to render a three-dimensional volume of the object based on the lightmaps,
as required by the last clause of claim 1. As discussed below, we are
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the cited reference does not
anticipate the subject matter of claim 1.
We begin with claim interpretation because before a claim can be
compared to the prior art, its scope must be understood. During patent
examination proceedings, claim terms are given “the broadest reasonable
meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 4) to the extent that the
Specification explains that the recited “lightmap” limitation “may be a type
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

6
of texture map that may be overlaid on an object to provide lighting detail or
lighting values for rendering an image.” Spec. ¶ 39. Although limitations
from the Specification are not ordinarily imported into the claims (In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), “[c]laims must be read in
view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). A proper
claim construction analysis endeavors to assign a meaning to a disputed
claim term “that corresponds with . . . how the inventor describes his
invention in the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, we find that lightmaps may use one or both of a
reflectance lightmap having reflective properties modeled using a
bidirectional/reflectance distribution function (BRDF) and transmitted
lightmap having transmitted light based on a bidirectional scattering
distribution function (BSDF). Spec. ¶ 44. Additionally, we agree with
Appellant that discussion of different types of lightmaps does not expand the
meaning of the disputed limitation such that a lightmap may be equated to a
light source. See Appeal Br. 10. We also agree with Appellant that the
Specification “only implies that the lightmap may be any type of lightmap
such as a reflectance lightmap or an illuminance lightmap or other type of
lightmap,” which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be
different from point light source(s), as asserted by the Examiner. Id.
We next turn to the dispositive issue in this rejection of whether the
light sources described in Wahrenberg are indicative of lightmaps as we
interpret this term in light of the Specification. The Examiner cited
paragraph 45 of Wahrenberg as disclosing “light sources as virtual light
sources (¶ 0045) by assigning one or more of the voxels next to a target
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

7
organ to act as a light source, wherein said voxels are adjacent a region of
tissue of interest - a distributed volume of light emission adjacent to the
tissue of interest.” Ans. 6. Wahrenberg does not mention “lightmaps.”
Wahrenberg describes voxels acting as a light source, which are adjacent to
a region of the tissue of interest and are used in rendering an image of the
area by calculating how light travels from the light source voxel. See
Wahrenberg ¶¶ 39–46. Furthermore, the Examiner did not explain how
“light source voxels” represent a lightmap as “a type of texture map that may
be overlaid on an object to provide lighting detail or lighting values for
rendering an image.” Spec. ¶ 39. In finding that the volume rendering in
Wahrenberg is indicative of using light source voxels as the recited
“lightmaps” representing a texture map (see Ans. 8), the Examiner did not
consider the ordinary meaning of the claim term, as described in Appellant’s
disclosure cited above. As further asserted by Appellant (Reply Br. 3–5),
the term “light source” is mentioned in paragraph 61 of the Specification,
which describes the illumination of the interior or exterior areas in
generating light maps. Thus, the Specification distinguishes between light
source and lightmap. The Examiner did not address this difference in how
the terms are used in the Specification. See Smith, 871 F.3d at 1383.
CONCLUSION
Because the Examiner did not establish that Wahrenberg’s light
sources are the same as lightmaps required by the claim 1, we are persuaded
of Examiner error in rejecting claim 1, and other independent claims 13 and
17 which also require rendering an object in three-dimensions from first and
second lightmaps. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 13, and 17, as well as claims 2, 3, 5–12, 14–16, and
Appeal 2020-002085
Application 15/492,589

8
18–20 which incorporate the limitations of their base claims, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahrenberg. We also do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable
over Wahrenberg and Serra because the Examiner has not identified any
teachings in Serra to cure the above-identified deficiency of Wahrenberg.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–20 102(a)(1),
102(a)(2)
Wahrenberg 1–3, 5–20
4 103(a) Wahrenberg, Serra 4
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED