Ex Parte Carroll et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2015

12206232 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/206,232 09/08/2008
34431 7590 01/04/2016
HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC
150 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Carroll
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2017 6/230288IT 8479
EXAMINER
MORGAN, ROBERT W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2016 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):
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH CARROLL, BENJAMIN D. NOVATZKY,
KENGO BABA, and JOHNY AN
Appeal2013-003567
Application 12/206,232
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C.
LORIN and ANTON W. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention is directed to a system and methods for
indicating an image location in an image stack in a picture archiving and
communication system (Spec. 1 ).
Appeal2013-003567
Application 12/206,232
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of indicating a medical image location
in an image stack, the method comprising:
generating, using a processor, an index of indications of
medical image locations in a medical image stack, the index
including an indication of each medical image in the image
stack, wherein each indication is representative of a
corresponding medical image, and wherein the index includes a
first indication of a first medical image location in a medical
image stack and a second indication of a second medical image
location in the medical image stack;
displaying via a user interface the first medical image and
the first indication of the first medical image location within the
medical image stack;
receiving a scroll input and scrolling through the index
displaying indications of medical image locations in the image
stack until the second indication of the second medical image is
displayed;
receiving a selection of the second indication of the
second medical image; and
displaying via the user interface the second medical
image and the second indication of the second medical image
location within the medical image stack.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Cooke
Siegel
Durgan
Chui
Shirahata
US 6,574,629 Bl
US 2004/0146221 Al
US 2008/0212861 Al
US 7,630,531 B2
US 7,894,646 B2
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
June 3, 2003
July 29, 2004
Sept. 4, 2008
Dec. 8, 2009
Feb.22,2011
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-22, 25-31and34--36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chui and Siegel.
2
Appeal2013-003567
Application 12/206,232
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chui, Siegel,
and Durgan.
Claims 8, 23, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chui, Siegel, and Shirahata.
Claims 9, 24, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chui, Siegel, and Cooke.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Chui does not
disclose generating an index of indications of medical image locations in a
medical image stack?
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all of the Examiner's findings as our own. Ans. 2-3.
i\.dditional findings of fact may appear in the i\.nalysis that follo\vs.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that Chui does not disclose indexing a medical stack.
Appellants argue that Chui discloses indexing nodules within the image, not
indexing a medical stack. The Examiner finds that even though Chui
discloses a navigation scheme based only on the presence of nodules, Chui
still meets the limitation of an index of medical image locations in an image
stack because two or more CT axial sections comprise an image stack (Ans.
6). We agree with the Examiner. In our view the various image sections of
the nodules are a stack of medical images as broadly claimed. In fact, Chui
3
Appeal2013-003567
Application 12/206,232
specifically refers to the axial sections as a stack of sections (Col. 4, 11. 53-
67).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants 'argument that Siegel does not disclose an index of medical
image locations in a medical image stack because the Examiner relies on
Chui not Siegel for teaching this subject matter.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner's rejection of the remaining
claims because the Appellants either do not address the separate
patentability of the claims or rely on the arguments advanced in responding
to the rejection of claim 1 in addressing the rejection of the claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l) (2009).
AFFIRMED
msc
4