Ex Parte Nolte

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2012

10669104 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

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.
10/669,104 09/23/2003 Bjorn Nolte P03,0383 3092
26574 7590 05/16/2012
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
ALTSCHUL, AMBER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BJORN NOLTE
____________

Appeal 2011-000149
Application 10/669,104
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000149
Application 10/669,104

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-12. We
have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to a medical system architecture of
the type having at least one modality to acquire examination images,
computer workstations associated with the respective modalities to process
the examination images, a device to transfer data, the examination images,
and messages between client applications and server applications, a storage
device for the data and examination images, and further computer
workstations for post-processing of the data and examination images, as well
as a method to exchange messages between nodes of a network (Spec. 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A medical system architecture comprising:
at least one imaging modality that acquires medical
examination images;
a computer workstation associated with said at least one
imaging modality;
a data transfer device that transfers data and messages
and said medical examination images between at least one
client and at least one server;
a storage device connected to said data transfer device
that stores at least said medical examination images;
at least one further computer workstation connected to
said data transfer device configured for post-processing said
data and said examination images; and
a proxy server in communication exclusively with said
data transfer device configured to convert said messages
between said at least one client and said at least one server
according to predetermined transformation rules that make
operation of said proxy server transparent to said data transfer
device, and thus to said at least one imaging modality, said
Appeal 2011-000149
Application 10/669,104

3
computer workstation, said storage device and said at least one
further computer workstation.

Claims 1-7 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Pinsky (US 5,513,101, iss. Apr. 30, 1996).
We REVERSE.

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Pinsky
anticipates independent claim 11 (App. Br. 3-8). The Examiner asserts that
“Pinsky’s system of using a server, WAN/LAN and image acquiring
hospitals coupled to a regional radiology hub is an art recognized equivalent
to a proxy server for converting messages between at least one client and at
least one server according to predetermined transformation rules” (Exam’r’s
Ans. 8; emphasis added). However, this is an anticipation rejection. By
admitting that an equivalent of the system in Pinsky corresponds to the
proxy server of independent claim 1, the Examiner is also admitting that
Pinsky does not disclose a proxy server, a conclusion that is not clearly
contradicted by the cited portions of Pinsky. Accordingly, we cannot sustain
this anticipation rejection.

1 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of all claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-000149
Application 10/669,104

4
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 9-12 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh