10264031 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Dolimier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 23, 2012

10264031 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte DAMIEN DOLIMIER, DANNY M. SKYBA, EDWARD A. MILLER, and ROHIT GARG ____________________ Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THOMAS S. HAHN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-28, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1 We affirm. The claims are directed to a method, system, and computer-readable medium for processing ultrasound images. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for processing ultrasound images comprising the acts of: freezing an image from a sequence of ultrasound images being displayed on a display; in response to the freezing act, displaying the frozen image in a first portion of the display and displaying an original image sequence in a second portion of the display, the original image sequence comprising a thumbnail sequence including the frozen image and images preceding and following the frozen image; identifying each image of the sequence of ultrasound images by a tag of a tagging system; displaying the sequence of ultrasound images with associated tags; and receiving at least one input corresponding to at least one tag for one of removing at least one image from the sequence of ultrasound images identified by the at least one inputted tag and trimming at least a portion of the at least one image in the sequence of ultrasound images identified by the at least one inputted tag to form a modified image sequence. 1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 29, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 15, 2009) and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed February 4, 2009). Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Porter McDonald Miller Ida Ishii Chiao Asai Ito Miyake US 5,659,539 US 5,920,317 US 6,231,508 B1 US 2002/0051009 A1 US 6,546,188 B1 US 6,558,328 B2 US 6,710,785 B1 US 6,917,752 B2 US 6,943,841 B2 Aug. 19, 1997 July 6, 1999 May 15, 2001 May 2, 2002 Apr. 8, 2003 (filed Jan. 13, 1999) May 6, 2003 (filed June 4, 2001) Mar. 23, 2004 (filed Nov. 3, 1998) July 12, 2005 (filed Aug. 22, 2002) Sept. 13, 2005 (filed Nov. 21, 2001) Lafore Robert Lafore, OBJECT-ORIENTED PROGRAMMING IN C++ 389-445 (3rd ed. 1999). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter and Ida. Ans. 4-9. Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 4 Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, and Miyake. Ans. 9-10. Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, and Chiao. Ans. 11. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, and McDonald. Ans. 12-13. Claims 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, and Ito. Ans. 13-14. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, and Asai. Ans. 15-16. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, Ito, and Ishii. Ans. 16-17. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Porter, Ida, and Lafore. Ans. 17-18. ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 17-25 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 16, 18, 22, and 23 is in error.2 These arguments present us with the following issues: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Miller, Porter, and Ida teaches “in response to the freezing act, displaying the frozen image in a first portion of the display and displaying an original image sequence in a second portion of 2 While Appellants’ Appeal Brief includes separate headings for a number of the dependent claims, Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of these claims, instead referring to the arguments made with respect to the independent claims. See Br. 25-27. Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 5 the display, the original image sequence comprising a thumbnail sequence including the frozen image and images preceding and following the frozen image,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8, 16, 18, 22, and 23? (2) Did the Examiner improperly combine Miller, Porter, and Ida in rejecting claims 1, 8, 16, 18, 22, and 23? ANALYSIS Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23 We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23, as Appellants make the same arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, 16, 18, 22, and 23 and do not separately argue the patentability of the dependent claims. See Br. 17-25; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants first argue that the combination of Miller, Porter, and Ida does not teach “in response to the freezing act, displaying the frozen image in a first portion of the display and displaying an original image sequence in a second portion of the display, the original image sequence comprising a thumbnail sequence including the frozen image and images preceding and following the frozen image.” Br. 17-21. Appellants contend that Ida, which the Examiner cited as teaching the “in response” feature of claim 1, displays an enlarged thumbnail image on video display window 13 “in response to placing the frame pointer 12 on a particular thumb nail,” not in response to the act of “freezing an image from a sequence of ultrasound images being displayed on a display” as required by claim 1. Br. 19-21 (citing Ida ¶¶ 31- 33) (emphases omitted). According to Appellants: Paragraph [32 of Ida] recites that clicking a play or stop button also automatically moves or stops the frame pointer 12. Once Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 6 the frame pointer 12 is stopped, on a particular thumb nail, then this thumb nail is enlarged and displayed on a video display window 13. That is, the thumb nail is enlarge[d] in response to the frame pointer 12 stopping, and not in response to clicking the stop button. Rather, it is the thumb nail which is stopped in response to clicking the stop button. Then, after the thumb nail stops, and in response thereto, the thumb nail is enlarged. Br. 19-20. We disagree with Appellants. Figure 2 of Ida depicts a graphical user interface for allowing a user to define and extract a particular object from the background in a video. Ida ¶¶ 31-32, Fig. 2. The user interface comprises a video display window 13 for playing the video, a display frame switching button group 14 with selectable buttons, a video display lane 11 showing individual thumbnail images of the video frames, and a frame pointer 12 indicating the video’s current position in sequence. Ida ¶¶ 31-32. The thumbnail image at the current position of frame pointer 12 is “enlarged and displayed on the video display window 13,” and “[b]y clicking any button of the display frame switching button group 14, operations such as video play [and] stop . . . can be performed on the video display window 13, and accordingly, the frame pointer 12 automatically moves as well.” Ida ¶¶ 31-32. Thus, as the Examiner found, Ida displays a frozen image (enlarged thumbnail) on a first portion of a display (video display window 13) and an original image sequence (sequence of thumbnail images) on a second portion of the display (video display lane 11) in response to the freezing of the frozen image (the user clicking the stop button). See Ans. 5-6, 20-21; Ida ¶¶ 31-32. The particular thumbnails and enlarged thumbnail image are displayed following, and as a direct result of, the user clicking the stop button during the playing of the video. See Ans. 5-6, 20-21; Ida ¶¶ 31-32. Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 7 Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Ida does not indicate that the displays are in response to movement of the frame pointer; rather, paragraph 32 merely states that “the frame pointer 12 automatically moves as well” when the user clicks the play or stop buttons. See Ida ¶ 32. Further, the fact that the user can drag the frame pointer to change the enlarged thumbnail image, see Ida ¶ 33, does not mean that stopping the video similarly requires moving the frame pointer, see Ida ¶ 32. Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence or argument to show that the displays in Ida are “in response” to movement of the frame pointer to a particular thumbnail image rather than the freezing of the main image, and have not proposed any interpretation of the “in response” language in claim 1 that would exclude Ida’s disclosed operation. Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Ida teaches the “in response” feature. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Miller, Porter, and Ida to arrive at the claimed invention is insufficient. Br. 21-25. Appellants contend that because Ida fails to teach the “in response” feature of claim 1, the combination would not achieve the Examiner’s stated advantage of aiding the user in identifying individual video frames in the ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system of Miller. Br. 23-24. For the reasons stated above, we disagree that Ida fails to teach the “in response” feature of claim 1. We also accordingly disagree that the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining the cited references is insufficient. As the Examiner explained, the ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system disclosed in Miller requires the user to identify and select particular video frames for further review, and a person of ordinary skill in the art Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 8 would have found it advantageous to incorporate the responsive stopping and thumbnail image sequence of Ida into the Miller system “to more efficiently identify and select individual frames.” See Ans. 22-23 (citing Miller, col. 7, ll. 22-46, and Ida ¶¶ 31-33); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). The Examiner therefore provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We see no error in the Examiner’s proposed combination and concur that the combination of Miller, Porter, and Ida would have rendered obvious the subject matter of the claims. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 20, 21, and 24-28 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 20, 21, and 24-28 (Ans. 9-18) because Appellants do not particularly identify errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to overcome the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion for these claims apart from previously- made arguments. See Br. 25-27. For the reasons previously discussed, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Appeal 2010-003796 Application 10/264,031 9 CONCLUSION Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-28 is affirmed. 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 babc 3 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of claims 22 and 23 directed to a “computer-readable medium storing a series of programmable instructions,” the Examiner’s attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922 (July 27, 2010); David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08- 25_interim_101_instructions.pdf.