Ex Parte CrucsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201211078810 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS ____________ Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, HYUN J. JUNG, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dove (US 5,179,579; iss. Jan. 12, 1993). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “capturing, displaying, and viewing representations of progressions of anatomical structures and associated digital images.” Spec. 1, para [0001]. Claims 1, 4, 19, and 26 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method of graphically representing a sequence of anatomical structures to be imaged or which have been imaged in a pre-defined ordered progression, said method comprising: displaying a pictorial representation of at least two anatomical structures such that said at least two anatomical structures are positioned in correct anatomical relation to each other in said pictorial representation; and displaying at least one indicia for each of said at least two anatomical structures as a part of said pictorial representation such that it is apparent which said indicia are associated with which said anatomical structures, and wherein said indicia define an ordered progression in which said at least two anatomical structures are to be imaged or have been imaged. Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 3 OPINION Claims 1, 4, and 19 each recite a method including “displaying a pictorial representation of at least two anatomical structures . . . positioned in correct anatomical relation to each other” and “displaying at least one indicia for each of said at least two anatomical structures.” Claim 1 further recites “wherein said indicia define an ordered progression in which said at least two anatomical structures are to be imaged or have been imaged.” Claim 4 recites “wherein said indicia define an ordered progression in which images of said at least two anatomical structures are to be acquired from a patient” and claim 19 recites “wherein said indicia define an ordered progression in which images associated with said at least two anatomical structures have been previously acquired from a patient.” Claim 26 is directed to a computer-based system that comprises “means for generating and displaying . . . a pictorial representation of at least two anatomical structures to be imaged and associated indicia” with the indicia “defin[ing] an ordered progression in which images of said at least two anatomical structures are to be acquired or have been acquired from a patient.” Claim 26 further recites “wherein said at least two digital images are displayed within said image layouts on said display in proper correspondence to said at least two anatomical structures.” In the rejection of claims 1, 4, 19, and 26, the Examiner finds that Dove discloses “one indicia for each structure (col. 3, lines 58-60).” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that “the Dove disclosure specifically describes Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 4 indicia-based ordered progression associated with acquiring images in which timestamp-based indicia are displayed and permanently associated with each set of (e.g.[,] at least two) anatomical structures prior to image acquisition (col. 3, lines 58-60 and fig. 3).” Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that “[t]his is further evidenced by the fact that subsequent to image acquisition a user may display a movie (CINE/CINE Loop; col. 4, lines 1-2) of the frame-by- frame images acquired in chronological order.” Ans. 7. The Examiner additionally finds that “Dove discloses indicia directly stamped upon the acquired image for subsequent image storage and display (col. 5, lines 27- 29) in addition to the timestamp indicia (col. 4, lines 21-23).” Id. Initially, we note that claims 1, 4, and 19 each require “at least one indicia for each of said at least two anatomical structures” and claim 26 requires “at least two anatomical structures to be imaged and associated indicia.” As indicated above, the claimed indicia define an ordered progression in which the anatomical structures are to be imaged or have been imaged and are not simply a single date and time for a set of images from an examination. Appellant argues, “[e]lement 36 of Dove is a patient query dialog field having element 42, which is simply a date-of-examination subfield, and element 43, which is simply a time-of-examination subfield.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant asserts that “[t]hese are . . . simply the date and time of the entire examination, independent of how many images are acquired . . . and independent of the order of acquisition.” Id. We agree. The Examiner Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 5 relies on column 3, lines 58-60, of Dove as disclosing one indicia for each structure. Ans. 4. However, in column 3, lines 58-60, Dove discloses that subfields 42 and 43, respectively, display the date and time of the examination. The cited portion of Dove does not disclose displaying indicia for each of the anatomical structures of that particular examination, as required by claims 1, 4, and 19. The cited portion of Dove also fails to disclose means for generating and displaying a pictorial representation of at least two anatomical structures to be imaged and associated indicia, wherein the associated indicia defines a progression in which the images were acquired, as required by claim 26. In response to the Examiner’s reliance on the CINE loop (described at column 4, lines 1-2, of Dove) as further evidence of an indicia-based ordered progression of images in Dove, Appellant argues that: [s]uch a CINE loop of acquired images does not correspond to having a pictorial representation of anatomical structures positioned in correct anatomical relation to each other and designated with indicia as part of the pictorial representation to define an ordered progression in which the anatomical structures are to be imaged or have been imaged. Reply Br. 5-6. We agree. Column 4, lines 1-2, of Dove simply indicates that a user can decide “whether display [of the images] in a predetermined sequence is desired (CINE).” Dove does not reference any indicia related to the order in which the images were taken or in which the images are to be taken. As explained by Appellant, “[t]he CINE loop of Dove simply defines the order in which images are to be played back to a user, independent of Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 6 any order of acquisition (order of imaging).” Reply Br. 6. Based on the disclosure of Dove, there is no reason to believe that the predetermined display sequence necessarily is based on an ordered progression associated with the sequence in which the images were acquired. With regard to the Examiner’s finding that “Dove discloses indicia directly stamped upon the acquired image . . . in addition to the timestamp indicia” (Ans. 7 (citing Dove, col. 5, ll. 27-29)), Appellant argues that “this is not equivalent to having indicia displayed with a pictorial representation of anatomical structures where the indicia define an ordered progression in which the anatomical structures are to be imaged or have been imaged” (Reply Br. 6). We agree. Column 5, lines 21-23 of Dove explains that the user “select[s] the anatomical site within icon 53 that is to be associated with the x-ray image captured in block 79.” Dove further explains that “[a]fter the selection has occurred, control passes to block 82 where the captured image is stored along with indicia of the associated location in the icon.” Id. at ll. 26-29. These indicia are related to a user selection of an anatomical site within an icon. The disclosure of Dove does not explain whether these indicia are related to any ordered progression in which the images were taken or are to be taken. Moreover, there is no indication that these particular indicia of Dove are displayed. For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dove. Appeal 2010-010575 Application 11/078,810 7 DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-30. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation