Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2013

11125931 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS
____________

Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-22, and 24-26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, “[t]he general idea [of the invention] is to use
pre-defined page representation templates to organize digital medical images
on a single page.” Spec., p. 4, ¶[0015].
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of organizing medical images, said
method comprising:
displaying at least two digital medical images in at least
one application window of a patient management software
application of a computer-based system, wherein said digital
medical images are identified as being of at least two different
medical image types;
displaying at least two page representation templates in at
least one other application window of said patient management
software application, wherein said page representation
templates include at least two pre-defined, blank image holder
areas which are defined as corresponding to at least two
different medical image types;
a user selecting one of said page representation templates
based on at least one of said type and number of said displayed
medical images;
importing said digital medical images into said selected
page representation template, wherein each of said medical
images is associated with one of said at least two pre-defined
image holder areas based on at least said medical image type;
and
displaying said selected page representation template
having said imported medical images in an application window
of said patient management software application, wherein each
of said imported medical images is automatically sized to a size
of an associated image holder area of said user-selected
template and entirely displayed in said associated image holder
area.
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

3
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fischer
Roewer
US 3,906,235
US 5,734,915
Sept. 16, 1975
March 31, 1998
Smith US 5,970,499 Oct. 19, 1999
Chang
Tanaka
US 2003/0050790 A1
US 2003/0058256 A1
March 13, 2003
March 27, 2003
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-18, and 20-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Roewer, Smith, and Tanaka. Ans., pp. 4-
12.1
The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 and 24-26 under § 103 as
unpatentable over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Chang. Id. at pp. 12-14.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 19 under § 103 as unpatentable
over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Fischer. Id. at p. 15.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-18, and 20-23
over Roewer, Smith, and Tanaka
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-18, and 20-23 are rejected as being obvious over
Roewer, Smith, and Tanaka. Appellant does not present separate arguments
for these claims, but rather address only in-common features; i.e., subject
matter recited by independent claims 1 and 14 and thus also required by their

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 15, 2010
(“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 2, 2010 (“Ans.”),
and the Reply Brief filed October 12, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

4
respective dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 15-18, and 20-23. App. Br., pp. 8-12.
We select claim 1 (reproduced supra) as representative. The remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Turning to claim 1, the Examiner cites Roewer as teaching the
claimed displaying of images, displaying of templates, selecting of a
template based on the type and/or number of images, importing of the
images to the selected template, and displaying of the selected template with
its images. Ans., pp. 4-5. The Examiner cites Smith as showing that it
would have been obvious, as further claimed, for the images to be of
different types and for the templates to have image areas that both
“correspond to” different image types and respectively receive images
“associated with” the same type. Id. at pp. 6-7. The Examiner cites Tanaka
as showing that it would have been obvious, as further claimed, for such
imported images to be sized so as to completely fill and be entirely displayed
within their respective image areas. Id. at pp. 7-8.
A first issue concerns the Examiner’s finding that Roewer discloses
the claimed displaying of selectable templates at column 9, lines 52-54.
Ans., p. 16.
Appellant argues:
[C]ol. 9, lines 52-54 of Roewer states, “. . . the operator selects
NEW PCW [Print Composition Workshop] on the PCW
pulldown to open a new Print Composition Window. This is
the window which represents the final film page printed by the
target printer.” This is not equivalent to displaying at least two
page representation templates when given its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
present application.
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

5
Reply Br., p. 5. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive and, more
particularly, incommensurate with the scope of claim 1. There is no claim
requirement to display two templates simultaneously, side-by-side, etc.
Rather, the claim requires merely “displaying at least two page
representation templates in at least one other application window” (claim 1).
In addition to teaching that the PCW window represents the printed film
page (i.e., “WYSIWYG”), Roewer’s cited paragraph also teaches that the
“window originally opens with a frame grid . . . . based on page settings that
the operator made via the PCW Defaults” and the “operator places all
images and composed graphics in this window.” Roewer, col. 9, l. 52 – col.
10, l. 15; see also col. 13, ll. 54-63. An operator can accordingly configure
and preview/display multiple windows – that is, having different frame
settings entered via the PCW Defaults – before finally settling on a window
configuration for the frames and importing the images thereto.
A second issue concerns the Examiner’s finding that Smith shows it
would have been obvious for Roewer’s PCW windows to have frames that
“correspond to” different image types and respectively receive images
“associated with” the same type. Ans., pp. 6-7. According to the Examiner,
Smith suggests these features insofar that a “template MR [Magnetic
Resonance] 230 . . . includes predefined, blank data space areas to hold
corresponding MR images” and “a second template 232 is defined as
corresponding to a second different modality for the different type of CT
[Computed tomographic] medical images.” Id. at pp. 16-17.
Appellant argues:
Smith describes an MR template capable of accommodating a
single three dimensional MR scan, suggesting only a single
image holder area in the template. Smith goes on to describe
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

6
that multi-modal patient data (e.g., corresponding to different
medical image types) requires multiple corresponding
templates, further suggesting that there can be only one image
holder area per template in Smith. . . .
. . . .
For example, Smith states that template layer 202
includes corresponding MR image template 230, CT image
template 232, and landmark template 234[.]
Reply Br., pp. 5-6. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive and, more
particularly, fails to address the proposed combination of teachings. Roewer
is cited as teaching a PCW window that includes multiple image frames.
Ans., p. 5. Smith is cited as showing that it would have been obvious to
configure Roewer’s image frames for respective image types. Ans., pp. 5-7.
Appellant’s argument fails to address this proposed combination of
teachings, instead alleging Smith does not alone teach a single template
having image frames configured for different image types. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references” (citatiom omitted).).
We note also that Roewer teaches that the image frames can be
captioned to describe respective image types. See Roewer, col. 19, ll. 1-49
(“Each template can hold labels and values of attributes of the institution,
patient, modality, and the medical image[.]”). Such captions would clearly
describe – and the frames would in turn correspond to – different image
types. See Spec. 7, ¶ [0023] (addressing the “many forms” of image types;
e.g., size, modality, and anatomy).
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

7
A third issue concerns the Examiner’s finding that Roewer teaches
importing of the images to a selected template at Figures 12A and 12B.
Ans, p. 16.
Appellant argues:
Figs. 12A-12B of Roewer illustrate a typical PCW window
before and after image transfer. This is not equivalent to
importing digital medical images into a selected page
representation template when given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification.
Reply Br., p. 5. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive and, more
particularly, fails to specify a broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed “importing” in light of the specification. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming in part because Appellant “merely
argued that the claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to proffer a
serious explanation of this difference” (quoting In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant[.]”); 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). As best
we can discern, Appellant is arguing merely that Roewer’s PCW window is
not selected from multiple windows. However, as discussed with respect to
the first issue, Roewer’s operator can generate and preview multiple
windows before settling on a final configuration of the image frames.
Supra, p. 7. In this manner, Roewer’s operator imports the images to a
selected one of multiple windows.
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

8
A fourth issue concerns the Examiner’s finding that Roewer suggests
the claimed sizing of each image so as to completely fill the respective
image frame (Ans., p. 5) and Tanaka suggests the further sizing of each
image so as to be entirely displayed within the respective image frame (Ans.,
pp. 7-8). The Examiner explains that Roewer shows an image can be
“clipped” to the same proportions as an image area and Tanaka shows an
image can be enlarged or reduced to fit an image area. Ans., p. 18 (citing
Roewer, col. 17, ll. 35-37 and Tanaka, ¶ [0061]).
Appellant argues:
Roewer discloses clipping an image and Tanaka discloses using
image icons to manipulate the portrait sizes (see Fig. 7). That
is, a user can change the positions and the enlargement ratios
for the respective image data sets G1 and G2, by using image
manipulation icons 50 to 53 (paragraph [0061], lines 1-10, Fig.
7). This is not equivalent to the claimed limitation[.]”
Reply Br., p. 7. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive and, more
particularly, fails to address the proposed combination of teachings. Roewer
and Tanaka are cited as respectively showing that it would have been
obvious to proportion and enlarge/reduce each image so as to perfectly fit
the entire image within its respective image area. Ans., pp. 5-8 and 18.
Appellant merely argues that neither Roewer nor Smith individually sizes an
image as claimed.
Additionally, though the cited portions of Roewer and Tanaka each
describe image trimming (which would not import the entire image, as
claimed), we find that it would have been mere common sense to provide
Roewer’s image frames the same proportions as their respective images and
then enlarge/reduce those images so as to perfectly fit the frames. Nothing
more is required by the claimed sizing.
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

9
For the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection of claims 1-4, 6-
10, 14-18, and 20-23 over Roewer, Smith, and Tanaka is sustained.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 11-13 and 24-26
over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Chang
Each of claims 11-13 and 24-26 depends from claim 1 or 14 and is
rejected as obvious over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Chang. Appellant
does not present additional bases of patentability for claims 11-13 and 24-
26, but rather reassert the unpersuasive arguments addressed supra. App.
Br., pp. 12-13. Accordingly, the obviousness rejections of claims 11-13 and
24-26 over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Chang are sustained.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5 and 19
over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Fischer
Each of claims 5 and 19 depends either from claim 1 or claim 14 and
is rejected as obvious over Roewer, Smith, Tanaka, and Fischer. Appellant
does not present additional bases of patentability for claims 5 and 19, but
rather reassert the unpersuasive arguments addressed supra. App. Br., p. 13.
Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 19 over Roewer,
Smith, Tanaka, and Fischer is sustained.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-22, and 24-26 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
Appeal 2011-001568
Application 11/125,931

10

llw