Ex Parte Uchikubo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 17, 2012

10961987 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 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.
10/961,987 10/08/2004 Akinobu Uchikubo 18310 7774
23389 7590 07/17/2012
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
EXAMINER
JOHNSON III, HENRY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3769
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2012 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 AKINOBU UCHIKUBO, MASAKAZU GOTANDA, and
TAKEAKI NAKAMURA
____________________

Appeal 2010-004270
Application 10/961,987
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004270
Application 10/961,987
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. An operation support system in which an operation device
portion and a support device portion are connected each other
through a communication line,
wherein the operation device portion comprises a
controller which controls a plurality of medical devices and a
signal transmitting device which transmits data to the support
device portion side with a communication protocol to be
transmitted to the communication line and receives data from
the support device portion side,
wherein the controller comprises
a transmitting-data storing portion which stores
predetermined data from control data of the plurality of medical
devices as data to be transmitted,
an address storing portion which stores an address on the
communication line of the support device portion, and
a data transmitting control portion which transmits the
data to be transmitted to the support device portion through the
communication line, and
wherein the data transmitting control portion reads the
address from the address storing portion upon monitoring the
control data and finding change on the transmitting data, and
transmits the transmitting data which is changed therein to
the support device portion through the communication line.

Appeal 2010-004270
Application 10/961,987
3
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Uchikubo ‘185 (US 6,602,185 B1, iss. Aug. 5,
2003).
II. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Uchikubo ‘318 (JP 2000-270318, pub. Sep. 29,
2000), Honda (US 2002/0115917 A1, pub. Aug. 22, 2002), and Pike
(US 5,685,821, iss. Nov. 11, 1997).

OPINION
With respect to Rejection I, Appellants argue independent claims 1,
11, and 14 as a first group. App. Br. 13-15. With respect to Rejection II,
Appellants rely on the argument presented for the first group. App. Br. 15.
Similarly, with respect to the dependent claims (for both rejections),
Appellants rely on the argument presented for the first group. App. Br. 15-
16. We select claim 1 as representative of the first group, and note that the
disposition of the issue with this claim will control the disposition of the
appeal.
Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, an operation support
system having a controller that “transmits the transmitting data which is
changed.” The Examiner found that Uchikubo ‘185 describes a controller
transmitting data in real time. Ans. 5 (citing Uchikubo ‘185, col. 9, ll. 40-
48). Appellants argue that Uchikubo ‘185 does not disclose or suggest
“sending/receiving support information in real time while optimizing traffic
by transmitting only data to be transmitted among control data.” App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 3. However, as the Examiner correctly points out, the claim
does not require that only the changed data is transmitted. See Ans. 5.
Appeal 2010-004270
Application 10/961,987
4
Instead, the claim merely requires the transmitting control portion of the
controller to transmit changed data. If Uchikubo ‘185 transmits the data in
real time, then it transmits both changed and unchanged data. Thus,
Uchikubo ‘185 discloses a controller that transmits changed data.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the claim and do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Uchikubo ‘185. Claims 11 and 14 fall therewith. Because Appellants rely
on the unpersuasive arguments addressed above for the rejections of the
remaining claims, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the rejections
of those claims.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-14.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10.
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

hh