Ex Parte ROUTH et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2016

13293505 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/293,505 11/10/2011 Helen ROUTH
24737 7590 03/18/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2002P02943 US02 2482
EXAMINER
LUBIN, VALERIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELEN ROUTH, ADRIAN WARNER, KEVIN BRADLEY, and
EARL CANFIELD
Appeal2013-008589
Application 13/293,505
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 30-36 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-008589
Application 13/293,505
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to medical imaging
system architectures (Spec. 1 :5-7). Claim 30, reproduced below with the
numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
30. A method of using a data network of a health care facility and a
data processor of the health care facility connected to the data network
to form a diagnostic imaging system with additional components
connected to the network comprising:
[ 1] accessing a data network of a health care facility having
ports in the facility to which components used for diagnostic imaging
may be connected, the data network being connected to a data
processor of the health care facility;
[2] installing diagnostic image signal processing software on
the data processor of the health care facility;
[3] coupling a plurality of display units structured to display
diagnostic images to ports of the data network in the facility;
[ 4] coupling a portable diagnostic signal acquisition unit to a
port of the data network in the facility which is in proximity to a
display unit coupled to a port of the data network;
[5] coupling a portable control unit to a port of the data network
which is in proximity to the diagnostic signal acquisition unit and the
display unit which is in proximity to the diagnostic signal acquisition
unit;
[ 6] operating the control unit to control diagnostic imaging by
the diagnostic signal acquisition unit;
[7] transmitting diagnostic signals produced by the diagnostic
signal acquisition unit over the data network to the data processor of
the health care facility;
[8] processing the diagnostic signals produced by the diagnostic
signal acquisition unit with the data processor of the health care
facility using the installed diagnostic image signal processing software
to produce image data;
[9] transmitting the image data produced by the data processor
of the health care facility to the display unit which is in proximity to
the diagnostic signal acquisition unit; and
2
Appeal2013-008589
Application 13/293,505
[ l OJ displaying a medical diagnostic image on the display unit
using the image data produced by the data processor of the health care
facility,
[ 11] wherein diagnostic images acquired by the diagnostic
signal acquisition unit are processed by the data processor of the
health care facility, viewed on the display unit proximal the diagnostic
signal acquisition unit and the imaging procedure controlled by the
proximal control unit during a diagnostic imaging examination.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McMorrow (US 6,569,097 Bl, iss. May 27, 2003) and Wood (US
5,715,823, iss. Feb. 10, 1998).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence 1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 30 is improper
because the prior art McMorrow "does not enable a physician to use the data
processor at his or her health care facility" (Appeal Br. 13). The Appellants
argue that in McMorrow that instead the processing is done at a "remote"
location (Appeal Br. 13). The Appellants cite elements of claim limitations
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2013-008589
Application 13/293,505
[2], [3], [7], [8], and [11] as showing a relation to a data processor at the
physician's health care facility (Appeal Br. 13, 14, Reply Br. 2--4).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that rejection is proper (Ans.
3-8). The Examiner has determined that the claim does not require the use
of a data processor at the health care facility as argued, but rather only a
"data processor of the health care facility". The Examiner has determined
that the claim limitations argued are broad enough to read on being a
processor "associated" with the health care facility (Ans. 7).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the claim limitation [3] for
example requires "installing diagnostic image signal processing software on
the data processor of the health care facility". The cited claim limitation [3]
does not require that the data processor be specifically located "in" the
health care facility, but rather only the data processor be "of' the health care
facility. This claim construction is supported by the Specification at page
13, lines 1--4, which only requires that the imaging software run on a
platform. Further, Figure 3 shows data processors and information systems
(62, 74) merely located on a platform of some kind and not necessarily "in"
a health care facility. The Appellants have only argued for claim elements
[2], [3], [7], [8], and [11] in regard to their showing a relation to a data
processor of the physician's health care facility, but this is not a requirement
of the claim and this element of the claim limitations has been shown in
Morrow's use of remote server database 18. Regardless, here there are a
finite number of locations where the data processing can take place, either
on-site or off-site and the modification to place such data processing in the
facility for quicker physical access to the system if desired would have been
an obvious modification. For these reasons the rejection of claim 31 is
4
Appeal2013-008589
Application 13/293,505
sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for the
remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same
reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 30-36 is sustained.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5