Susan Ng et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2019

14776435 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 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.
14/776,435 09/14/2015 Susan Ng 112961.00101 1097
29880 7590 09/10/2019
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
PRINCETON PIKE CORPORATE CENTER
997 LENOX DRIVE
BLDG. #3
LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648
EXAMINER
ALLISON, ANDRAE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2019 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):
ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUSAN NG, PETER A. RINGER, and JOHNNY KUO
____________

Appeal 2018-008458
Application 14/776,435
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1 and 30. Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20,
23, 24, 26, 28, 32, and 33 were withdrawn from consideration, and claims 4–
6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, and 31 were cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention renders and displays images from digital x-ray
tomosynthesis or tomography by displaying co-registered projection and

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Real Time Tomography,
LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008458
Application 14/776,435

2
tomosynthesis images in an image volume at a same z-depth and orientation.
See generally Spec. ¶¶ 2, 47–48. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. (Previously Presented) A method of dynamically
reconstructing three dimensional (3D) tomographic
images from a set of projection images, the method
comprising:

by a processing device, executing programming
instructions that are configured to cause the processing
device to perform a method comprising:

loading a set of projection images into a memory
device;
determining a reconstruction method for the set of
projection images;

reconstructing a 3D tomographic image from the set
of projection images to be displayed to a user;

rendering and causing a screen to display the
reconstructed 3D tomographic image; and

providing one or more enhancements for advanced
image processing and manipulation of 3D tomographic
data included within the reconstructed 3D tomographic
image, wherein:

the one or more enhancements comprise providing
2D projection image and 3D tomosynthesis image co-
registration, and

providing 2D projection image and 3D tomosynthesis
image coregistration further comprises displaying, by the
processing device display

projection and tomosynthesis images that are
spatially co-registered in an imaged volume at a same z-
depth and orientation.
Appeal 2018-008458
Application 14/776,435

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Ng (US 2009/0274354 A1; published Nov. 5, 2009). Ans. 2–
3.2

FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Ng discloses every recited element of claim
1, including providing 2D projection image and 3D tomosynthesis image co-
registration by displaying projection and tomosynthesis images that are
spatially co-registered in an image volume at a same z-depth and orientation.
Ans. 2–3.
Appellants argue that, although Ng recreates 3D tomosynthesis
images with depth by reconstructing 2D images, Ng does not co-register 2D
projection and 3D tomosynthesis images as claimed, let alone spatially co-
register them in an image volume at a same z-depth and orientation as
claimed. App. Br. 8–12; Reply Br. 3–6.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Ng co-registers 2D projection and 3D tomosynthesis images by
displaying projection and tomosynthesis images that are spatially co-
registered in an image volume at a same z-depth and orientation?

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 16,
2018 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 27, 2018
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed August 24, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008458
Application 14/776,435

4
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the key issue in this appeal is whether Ng co-
registers 2D projection and 3D tomosynthesis images as claimed, namely by
spatially co-registering projection and tomosynthesis images in an image
volume at a same z-depth and orientation.
The Specification does not define the term “co-registration,” unlike
other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning.
See Spec. ¶ 41 (defining various terms). The term “registration,” however,
is defined in the art as “[t]he process of aligning multiple images obtained
from different modalities, at different timepoints, or with different image
acquisition parameters.” DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, ENGINEERING,
AND TECHNOLOGY 416 (Phillip A. Laplante ed. 2001). Co-registering 2D
projection and 3D tomosynthesis images, then, would mutually align these
images consistent with this plain meaning.
But claim 1 does not just co-register these images: rather, it does so in
a particular way, namely by spatially co-registering the images in an imaged
volume at the same z-depth and orientation. The Specification’s paragraph
47 explains that this particular form of co-registration has an advantage over
conventional medical review workstations that, despite their ability to
display a reconstructed tomosynthesis image corresponding to a z-depth in
an imaged volume, nevertheless show projection images full screen with no
correlation between how the tomosynthesis and projection images are
displayed.
But by co-registering the projection and reconstructed images at the
same z-depth and orientation as shown in Appellants’ Figure 2, the viewer
can determine the contribution of each projection image to objects that are in
Appeal 2018-008458
Application 14/776,435

5
focus in the reconstructed image. Spec. ¶ 48. This co-registration,
therefore, helps a clinician distinguish tissue from artifacts that may arise
from reconstruction or image processing. Id.
This discussion informs our understanding of the recited co-
registration of 2D projection and 3D tomosynthesis images at the same z-
depth and orientation—a crucial, recited limitation. Given this particular
recited co-registration, the Examiner’s construing “co-registration” as any
method of aligning images (Ans. 4) is, therefore, problematic, for this
construction ignores the particular form of co-registration claimed, namely
spatially co-registering projection and tomosynthesis images in an image
volume at a same z-depth and orientation. Accord Reply Br. 5–6 (noting
this point).
On this record, we agree with Appellants that Ng’s paragraphs 49 and
54, on which the Examiner relies for disclosing the recited projection and
tomosynthesis image spatial co-registration (Ans. 3–4), fall short of
necessarily disclosing this co-registration—a crucial requirement for
anticipation. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). So,
even if we were to accept the Examiner’s unsupported definition of
tomosynthesis as a method of registering 2D and 3D images (Ans. 4), the
Examiner still has not shown that Ng necessarily discloses the particular
form of co-registration claimed, namely spatially co-registering projection
and tomosynthesis images in an image volume at a same z-depth and
orientation. To the extent the Examiner finds that this particular form of co-
registration is necessarily present in Ng to anticipate the claim, there is no
evidence on this record to substantiate such a finding. And as to whether
and to what extent this particular form of co-registration would have been
Appeal 2018-008458
Application 14/776,435

6
obvious from Ng’s teachings, we cannot say on this record, nor will we
speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, and, for similar reasons, independent claim 30 that
recites commensurate limitations.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 30 under § 102.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 30.

REVERSED

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.

Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No.
Examiner

Art Unit

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Name

Classification

A US-

B US-

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

V

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Dictionary of computer science, engineering, and technology / edited by Phillip Laplante.
p. cm.
ISBN 0-8493-2691-5 (alk. paper)
I. Computer science-Dictionaries. 2. Engineering-Dictionaries. 3.
Technology-Dictionaries. I. Laplante, Phillip A.
QA76.15.D5258 2000
004'.03-dc2I 00-052882
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with
permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish
reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials
or for the consequences of their use.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publisher.
All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or internal use of specific
clients, may be granted by CRC Press LLC, provided that $.50 per page photocopied is paid directly to Copyright clearance
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA O 1923 USA. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is
ISBN0-8493-2691-5/01/$0.00+$.50. The fee is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted
a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works,
or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying.
Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
No claim to original U.S. Government works
International Standard Book Number 0-8493-2691-5
Library of Congress Card Number 00-052882
Printed in the United States of America I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Printed on acid-free paper
register file
register file a collection of CPU registers
addressable by number.
register indirect addressing an instruction
addressing method in which the register field
contains a pointer to a memory location that
contains the memory address of the data to be
accessed or stored.
register renaming dynamically allocating a
location in a special register file for an instance
of a destination register appearing in an instruc­
tion prior to its execution. Used to remove an­
tidependencies and output dependencies. See
reorder buffer.
register set a designation of a storage class
in a computer represented by one or more equiv­
alent registers. The implementation of one reg­
ister set may not necessarily be disjoint from
a different register set; for example, the inte­
ger register set and the floating-point register
set may be the same physical registers in some
machines and disjoint physical registers in other
machines. Register sets form the basis of one of
the problems in most compilers, that of allocat­
ing intermediate computations to storage classes
which are more efficiently accessed by the ma­
chine instructions.
register transfer notation a mathematical
notation to show the movement of data from one
register to another register by using a backward
arrow. Notation used to describe elementary op­
erations that take place during the execution of
a machine instruction.
register window in the SPARC architecture '
a set or window of registers selected out of a
larger group.
registration the process of aligning multi­
ple images obtained from different modalities
at different timepoints, or with different imag;
acquisition parameters.
regression the methods which use backward
prediction error as input to produce an estima­
tion of a desired signal. Quantitatively, the re­
gression of yon X, denoted by r(y), is defined
416
as the first conditional moment, i.e.,
r(y) = E(Xly) .
regression analysis a mathematical method
where an empirical function is derived from a
set of experimental data.
regression testing the test that is performed
on a system when this has been produced in
a new version/release. The regression testing
has to verify: (i) all of the already tested func­
tionalists that were correct and available in the
previous version are also present in the new ver­
sion without any problems, (ii) that the problems
solved in the new version have been effectively
solved without causing second level problems.
The regression testing is very important in order
to verify if the new release has solved the prob­
lems without adding new problems at the same
time.
regular expression a recursive notation for
a linguistic construct that can be analyzed by a
finite state automaton. Equivalent to a Type 3
grammar in the Chomsky Hierarchy.
regularization a procedure to add a con-
straint term in the optimization process that ha
a stabilizing effect on the solution.
regularization-based motion detection
gradient motion detection approach which con­
siders the optical flow estimation as an ill-posed
problem according to the Hadamard theory.
regular language a language that can be de­
scribed by some right-linear/regular grammar
(or equivalently, by some regular expression).
regulator a controller that is designed it
maintain the state of the controlled variable at
constant value, despite fluctuations of the Joa·
reinforcement learning learning on the ba ·,
of a signal that tells the learning system whet.Ir
its actions in response to an input (or series -·
inputs) are good or bad. The signal is usu
a scalar, indicating how good or bad the actio-·,
are, but may be binary.
rejection criteria
face texture, exi
of-tolerance dis
tute reasonable
from a product li.na,
relation (1) a
inputs and yields
may yield differe
(2) formally, a -
in the domain to _
range. See also
relational algebra
lational operator
relational calculus
guage for relation
relational databas.
collection of tab!
along with sets of "'
can be accessed alo-�
ing the structured
databases make it
mation based on
semantic frame.
relational operator
a Boolean result
values. Classically
erators such as less
are relational opera.
support them, opera
("in"), subset relati
string relationship
"is a substring of )
relational operator .
relational schema
relational type
and a list of attribu --
relationship co �·�
Used in entity relatio ,
relationship instance
lationship. Given
relationship instance