Ex Parte Chun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201311176482 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WON-SUK CHUN, JOSHUA NAPOLI, and THOMAS J. PURTELL II ____________ Appeal 2011-000186 Application 11/176,482 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM- IN-PART. Appeal 2011-000186 Application 11/176,482 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to imaging and visualization and, more particularly, to an architecture for rendering graphics on output devices over diverse connections. Spec. ¶ [0003]. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A system for displaying graphical information, the system comprising: an asset server for storing information; and a rendering server in communication with the asset server for receiving a graphics command and for rendering graphic display data in response to the graphics command and to the information, wherein the rendering server is independently addressable from the asset server. REJECTIONS Claims 1–8 and 10–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hu (US 7,039,723 B2; May 2, 1996). Ans. 3-8. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu and Regan (US 6,611,264 B1; Aug. 26, 2003). Ans. 9- 10. ISSUES Claims 1-18 and 21 Did the Examiner err in finding that Hu discloses “wherein the rendering server is independently addressable from the asset server,” as Appeal 2011-000186 Application 11/176,482 3 recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 15 and 21? Claim 19 Did the Examiner err in finding that Hu discloses “an asset layer for storing information” and “wherein the communication server is independently addressable from the asset server,” as recited in independent claim 19? Claim 20 Did the Examiner err in finding that Hu discloses “the display layer is independently addressable from the asset layer and the rendering layer,” as recited in claim 20? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions. We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Hu’s image data source does not disclose an assert server for storing information (App. Br. 10). We disagree with Appellants’ remaining conclusions. Claims 1–18 and 21 We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hu’s image data source stores information that it provides to the transmitting station (Ans. 10). Additionally, as the Examiner further correctly finds US 6,621,918 (“Hu ‘918”) is incorporated into the Hu Specification and describes that the image data source may be a database or archiving of a Radiology department that is located proximate to the transmitting station (Ans. 14). Appeal 2011-000186 Application 11/176,482 4 However, we agree with Appellants’ argument that Hu’s image data source fails to disclose an assert server (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4). Although Hu describes that the transmitting station accesses image data from the image data source (Ans. 3, 10 (citing Hu col. 3, ll. 65-67)), the image data source may be a passive database or archive (Hu Fig. 2; Hu ‘723 col. 4, ll.53-57). Thus, Hu does not disclose an asset server and, therefore, also does not disclose the rendering server is independently addressable from the asset server. Claim 19 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Hu fails to disclose an asset resource layer for storing information (App. Br. 14). Appellants’ Specification describes layers as software including, for example, application software and software modules. Spec. ¶ [0026]. As the Examiner correctly finds Hu ‘918 describes that the image data source may be a database or archiving of a department that is located proximate to the transmitting station (Ans. 14). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hu’s image data source discloses an asset resource layer for storing information (Ans. 3-4, 11). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection. Claim 20 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Hu’s description of a receiving station and a transmitting station fails to disclose the claimed Appeal 2011-000186 Application 11/176,482 5 display layer that is independently addressable from the asset layer and the rendering layer (App. Br. 22). As the Examiner correctly finds, Hu describes display software in receiving station 300a-e that is independently addressable from the asset layer and rendering layer (Ans. 8, 13 (citing Hu Fig. 2)). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10–18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).1 We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 1 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner’s attention is directed to claim 19 which recites “wherein the communication server is independently addressable from the asset server” since both “the communication server” and “the asset server” lack antecedent basis. Appeal 2011-000186 Application 11/176,482 6 ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation