Canfield Scientific, Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2021003363 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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.
15/074,304 03/18/2016 Brian D'Alessandro CAN-15-001 1032
55168 7590 06/28/2021
Kolefas IP Law, LLC
22 Maple Drive
Colts Neck, NJ 07722
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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):
ck@35usclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN D’ALESSANDRO

Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22, 33–35, and 37–39, which constitute all
of the claims pending. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 23–32 and 36 have been
canceled. Id. at 20 (Claims App.) We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 18, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Mar. 23, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Nov. 23,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed Feb. 23, 2021
(“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Canfield
Scientific, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for assisting a user in identifying skin conditions (e.g.,
moles, lesions). Spec. ¶ 10. In particular, upon determining an attribute (e.g.,
size, color, symmetry) associated with each of a plurality of skin features
captured in an image of an interested skin portion, a processor crops the
captured image to generate a tile or thumbnail of each of the captured skin
features according to the attribute associated therewith to subsequently
arrange and display the skin features as a plurality of concentric
tiles/thumbnails isolating one skin feature from another. Id. ¶¶ 10, 47, 49.
Figure 3, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed
subject matter:

Figure 3 illustrates tile images of detected lesions arranged in a spiral order
of area according to a size associated with each lesion. Id. ¶ 51.

Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method performed by a skin imaging apparatus,
comprising:
determining at least one attribute associated with each of a
plurality of skin features included in one or more images of skin;
generating a plurality of tile images, each of the plurality of tile
images generated being of each of the plurality of skin features,
wherein generating the tile image of each skin feature includes
cropping at least one of the one or more images of skin to isolate the
skin feature from the other of the plurality of skin features;
arranging the tile images in accordance with the at least one
attribute associated with each of the plurality of skin features; and
controlling a display device to display the arranged tile images
of the plurality of skin features.

Claims App. (emphasis added).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
Skladnev US 6,993,167 B1 Jan. 31, 2006
Grichnik US 7,415,143 B2 Aug. 19, 2008
Ortiz US 2009/0118600 A1 May 7, 2009
Zuhlke-
Kimball
US 2014/0126787 A1 May 8, 2014
Smith
(referenced as
Levi)
WO 97/47235 Dec. 18, 1997

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–22, 33–35, and 37–39 as follows:

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
4
Claims 1–6, 9–18, 21, 22, 33–35, and 37–39 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over the combined teachings of Levi, Zuhlke-
Kimball, and Skladnev. Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable
over the combined teachings of Levi, Zuhlke-Kimball, Skladnev, and
Grichnik. Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable
over the combined teachings of Levi, Zuhlke-Kimball, Skladnev, and Ortiz.
Final Act. 6–7.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Levi, Zuhlke- Kimball, and Skladnev teaches or suggests
“‘generating a tile image of each of [a] plurality of skin features,’ and
‘arranging the tile images in accordance with … at least one attribute
associated with each of the plurality of skin features,” as recited in
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added). In particular,
Appellant argues that Levi discloses generating and displaying a list of skin
lesions, but it does not generate a tile image for each lesion to thereby
arrange or display the tile images in accordance with an attribute. Id. at 7–8
(citing Levi Figs. 11, 12). Further, Appellant argues that Zuhlke-Kimball’s
disclosure of cropping an image of one or more lesions and examining
factors indicative of melanoma does not teach generating a tile image for
each lesion and thereby does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Levi. Id.
at 9–11 (citing Zuhlke-Kimball ¶¶ 36, 52–54, 56, 73–76, Fig. 6). According
to Appellant, Zuhlke-Kimball’s cropping focuses on a particular one of the
plurality of lesions in an image without creating a tile image for any of the
Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
5
lesions (i.e., creating multiple cropped images of each lesion and arrange
them as a tile). Id. at 10. Additionally, Appellant argues that Skladnev’s
disclosure of using a frame grabber to capture and store frames of video of
skin features and fitting them on a histogram of color to distinguish between
lesions based on differences in color does not teach the disputed limitations.
Id. at 10–12 (citing Skladnev 10:12–13, 28:35–62, 36:48–37:11).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As a preliminary matter, we agree with Appellant that the disputed
claim limitations set forth above require generating multiple tile images
from an image of multiple lesions by cropping the image multiple times to
isolate each lesion from the other lesions. Appeal Br. 12.
Levi relates to a dermal diagnostic analysis system for quantifying the
visual appearance of skin disorders by comparing different versions of
captured images in a patient’s skin conditions. Levi Abstr., Figs. 11, 12.
Further, Zuhlke-Kimball relates to a dermatologic assessment system for
detecting melanoma risks by cropping a particular area in a captured image
depicting various skin lesions of a patient to thereby generate mole image
information including a snapshot digital image of the content within the
image capture field. Zuhlke-Kimball ¶¶ 36, 52–54, 56, Fig. 3. Additionally,
Skladnev discloses a system for collecting, storing, and displaying
dermatological images depicting a patient’s lesions on a map, and
subsequently arranged on a color histogram according to their intensity.
Skladnev, Abstr., 24:5–58, 28:35–62, 36:47–37:11.
We do not agree with the Examiner that because Levi displays a list of
lesions detected on a patient’s skin, it discloses generating a tile for each of
the lesions. Ans. 8 (citing Levi Figs. 6, 11–13). As persuasively argued by
Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
6
Appellant, Levi merely displays a list of lesions in a captured image without
generating a tile image for each of the lesion. Appeal Br. 8. We likewise do
not agree with the Examiner that Zuhlke-Kimball’s disclosure of cropping a
captured image to generate mole image information including a snapshot of
the mole teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Zuhlke-Kimball
¶¶ 17, 29, 36, 46, 51, 56, Figs. 3, 6). As persuasively argued by Appellant,
Zuhlke-Kimball’s disclosed cropping modifies the captured image to focus
on a particular lesion, as opposed to reproducing various images of the
lesion to generate the tile. Appeal Br. 10. Additionally, we do not agree with
the Examiner that Skladnev’s disclosure of displaying detected lesions on a
histogram to distinguish one lesion from another teaches the disputed
limitations. Ans. 9–10 (citing Skladnev 24:5–42, 36:48–67, 37:1–11, Figs. 5,
13). The Examiner’s conclusion is rather speculative, and wholly
unsupported on the record before us. We decline to engage in such
speculation. “A rejection . . . must rest on a factual basis . . . .” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty
of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. The Levi, Zuhlke- Kimball, and
Skladnev combination would at best result in a dermal diagnostic system
that crops different captured images of a skin condition to identify and
display differences between the lesions therein. As persuasively argued by
Appellant, the cited combination falls short of creating a tile image for each
of the captured lesions by cropping each of the lesions and arranging them
according to a detected attribute (e.g., size). Appeal Br. 12. Because the
record is devoid of any evidence to support that the dermal diagnostic
Appeal 2021-003363
Application 15/074,304
7
system generates and arranges a plurality of tile images for the skin features,
we agree with Appellant that the proposed combination of Levi, Zuhlke-
Kimball, and Skladnev does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations of
claim 1.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 2–22, 33–35, and 37–39, which also
recite the disputed limitations.

VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–22, 33–35, and 37–39.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–18,
21, 22, 33–
35, 37–39
103 Levi, Zuhlke- Kimball, Skladnev
1–6, 9–18,
21, 22, 33–
35, 37–39
7, 19 103 Levi, Zuhlke- Kimball, Skladnev 7, 19
8, 20 103
Levi, Zuhlke-
Kimball, Skladnev,
Ortiz
8, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–22, 33–
35, 37–39

REVERSED