Ex Parte Hu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

11331558 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

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.
11/331,558 01/15/2006 Hui Hu 2713
7590 07/30/2013
IPCI CONSULTANTS
STE. 725
225 S. MERAMEC
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63105
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HUI HU and DOUGLAS BOYD

____________

Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558
1

Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
method and system for providing remote access to baggage scanned images.
The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
The real party in interest is TeleSecurity Sciences.
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 17, 2010) and the Answer (mailed
Aug. 11, 2010). We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A remote access security network is provided that comprises a local
terminal receiving scan data representative of objects scanned during a
security check. An enterprise server communicates with the local terminal.
The enterprise server processes the scan data to form a displayable image
and provides remote access to the displayable image upon request. A remote
terminal located remote from the enterprise server and remote from the local
terminal communicates with the enterprise server over a high-speed
connection to provide remote review of the displayable image at the remote
terminal associated with the scan data obtained at the local terminal.
(Abstract).
Claims 2 and 4-36 are on appeal. Claims 14, 16, 23, 25, and 31 are
independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 23, which is reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

3
23. A remote access security network, comprising:
a local terminal receiving scan data representative of
objects scanned during a security check;
an enterprise server communicating with the local
terminal to obtain the scan data, the enterprise server including
an image rendering module; and
a remote terminal located remote from the enterprise
server and remote from the local terminal, the remote terminal
communicating with the enterprise server over a network
connection, the image rendering module at the enterprise server
generating a displayable image from the scan data based on a
request received from at least one of the local terminal and the
remote terminal, the enterprise server allowing access by the
remote terminal to the displayable image.

The claims are rejected as follows:
2

1. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-14, 19-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as obvious over McClelland and Ross. (Ans. 3-22).
2. Claims 15, 17, 183 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
as obvious over McClelland, Ross, and Deaven. (Ans. 23-29).
3. Claims 16, 30, and 364 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
obvious over McClelland, Ross, and Zanovitch. (Ans. 29-34).

2
No ground of rejection has been applied against claim 10.
3
Claim 18 is not included in the header recitations at page 23, but is
specifically discussed at pages 26-28.
4
Claim 36 is not included in the header recitations at page 29, but is
specifically cited at page 33 and appears to be discussed at page 34, albeit
improperly referred to as “claim 30.”
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

4
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 14, 23, 25, AND 31
ISSUE
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 2-10.

Dispositive Issue 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of McClelland and Ross teaches or suggests an
image rendering module at an enterprise server generating a displayable
image from the scan data based on a request received from at least one of a
local terminal and a remote terminal, as recited in claim 23?
Dispositive Issue 2: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of McClelland and Ross teaches or suggests an
enterprise server communicating with a local terminal to obtain scan data,
as recited in claim 23?
Appellants contend that McClelland’s servers do not receive scan data
from the local inspection machines and, therefore, do not generate
displayable images using the scan data. (Br. 19-20). Appellants contend that
McClelland’s servers store and provide access to X-ray images that are
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

5
generated by the inspection machines; that the servers receive images, but
not raw scan data from the inspection machines; and that the images are not
generated at the server using the scan data obtained from the inspection
machines. (Br. 20).
The Examiner Answers that: “[s]can data may be interpreted as ANY
data relating to the scanned object INCLUDING the image itself. In other
words, the term scan data encompasses an already scanned image.”
(Ans. 42). Alternatively, the Examiner finds that McClelland discloses that
the server my perform image processing on an image to produce a better
image. Thus, meeting the limitation “generating a playable image from the
scan data.” (Ans. 42).
During examination, claim terms are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation as they would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment may be
provided by the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention when read in the context of the
specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellants do not point to a specific
definition of their claim term “scan data.” However, Appellants’
specification provides guidance to the person of skill in the computer
graphics arts as to how that term is to be interpreted. Appellants disclose
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

6
that: “scan images are conveyed from the local terminals 12 to the
[enterprise server] 20 in one of several image formats (e.g., TIFF, JPEG,
PDF, etc.).” (Spec., ¶ 0020). The person of skill would recognize TIFF
5
and
JPEG
6
as digital image formats. Thus, the digital image has been rendered,
i.e., “generated,” at the local terminal and is conveyed to the enterprise
server.
Thus, Appellants disclosure is consistent with the Examiner’s finding
that the term “scan data” encompasses the already scanned and generated
image. (Ans. 42). We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in
respect of Dispositive Issue 1 or 2. Appellants contend that Ross does not
complete the teachings missing from McClelland (Br. 22), and that there is
insufficient motivation to combine McClelland and Ross. (Br. 23). However,
those arguments are unavailing because, as discussed above, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that McClelland meets the disputed limitations.

5
Tag Image File Format. File format used for storing bitmap images at any
resolution. Abbreviated TIFF. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical &
Computer Engineering, p. 571 (2003). Bit mapping. The assignment of each
location in a computer’s storage to a physical location on an electronic
display. (Id. at 54). Raster graphics. A computer graphics coding technique
which codes each picture element of the picture area in digital form. Also
known as bit-mapped graphics. (Id. at 475).
6
JPEG. Graphics file format for compressed still images, particularly
photographic images found on the World Wide Web developed by the Joint
Photographic Experts Group. (Id. at 312).

Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

7
Appellants contend that independent claim 14 is patentable for the
reasons argued in conjunction with claim 23. (Br. 27-28). For the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded of error.

CLAIMS 8 AND 20
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of McClelland and Ross teaches or suggests an
image rendering module at an enterprise server generating a displayable
image from the scan data, as recited in claim 23?
Appellants contend that the dependent claims are patentable in view
of the deficiencies alleged in connection with dependent claim 23. (Br. 25,
26).
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
has erred.

CLAIM 22
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of McClelland and Ross teaches or suggests:
“memory that records actions of an operator of one of the local and remote
terminal to form an action recording, the enterprise server replaying the
action recording,” as recited in claim 22?
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

8
The Examiner finds that Ross discloses that recordings of a user,
performing surgery, can be recorded and replayed in a virtual environment.
(Ans. 48). We agree.
CLAIMS 2, 4-13, 15, 17, 18, 19-22, 24, 26-30 AND 31-36
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend dependent claims 2, 4-13, 15, 17, 18, 19-22, and
24 are patentable by virtue of their dependence from independent claim 23,
that dependent claims 26-30 are patentable by virtue of their dependence
from independent claim 25, and that dependent claims 31-36 are patentable
by virtue of their dependence from independent claim 31. (Br. 28, 32).
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
has erred.
CLAIM 16
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of McClelland, Ross, and Zanovitch teaches or
suggests: “wherein the local terminal includes an instant-messaging module
that receives a command from an operator of the local terminal and
generates a review request that the enterprise server automatically routes
from the local terminal to the remote terminal,” as recited in claim 16?
The Examiner finds Zanovitch teaches the instant messaging
escalation function and that the person of skill would have recognized an
Appeal 2011-002085
Application 11/331,558

9
advantage to enhancing the ability of remote operators to communicate.
(Ans. 49-50). We are not persuaded of error.

SUMMARY

We affirm the rejection of claims 2, 4-9, and 11-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We do not reach the merits of claim 10 because no ground of rejection
has been applied thereto. We note that claim 10 depends from rejected claim
23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis