Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2016

12775681 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121775,681 05/07/2010 Kevin M. Crucs 119392 7590 06/30/2016 HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP/APTERYX/CRUCS 1 Gojo Plaza Suite 300 Akron, OH 44311 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 116385.00150 1632 EXAMINER BURGESS, JOSEPH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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): patents@hahnlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS Appeal2014-004273 Application 12/775,681 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--43. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method to automatically tailor image parameter settings in a dental X-ray imaging system having a user interface and an image processing subsystem, said method compnsmg: Appeal2014-004273 Application 12/775,681 selecting at least one dentition characteristic corresponding to a dentition of a patient to be imaged via said user interface of said dental X-ray imaging system; selecting at least one non-dentition characteristic corresponding to said patient to be imaged via said user interface of said dental X-ray imaging system; automatically determining at least one X-ray exposure setting in response to said at least one dentition characteristic and said at least one non-dentition characteristic via said image processing subsystem of said X-ray imaging system; and automatically generating a set of image parameter settings capable of being applied to acquired X-ray image data, being representative of said dentition of said patient, in response to said at least one dentition characteristic, said at least one non-dentition characteristic, and said at least one X-ray exposure setting via said image processing subsystem of said X-ray imaging system. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1--43 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dalpiaz (US 7,580,502 B2, iss. Aug. 25, 2009) and Rinaldi (US 2002/0085673 Al, pub. July 4, 2002). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does not disclose automatically generating a set of image parameter settings capable of being applied to acquired X-ray image data? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the disclosure at column 4, lines 21-28 of Dalpiaz of using an existing X-ray image in the Dalpiaz process is a 2 Appeal2014-004273 Application 12/775,681 disclosure of selecting at least one dentition characteristic corresponding to a dentition of a patient (Final Act. 3). The Examiner also finds that Dalpiaz discloses using this existing X-ray image to generate a set of image parameter settings capable of being applied to X-ray image data (col. 2, lines 20-35). The Appellant argues that Dalpiaz uses the existing X-ray image to determine the position of the X-ray machine not to generate a set of image parameters as required by claim 1. We agree with the Appellant. We find that Dalpiaz is directed to a system for positioning an X-ray apparatus (col. 1, 11. 61---63). Dalpiaz discloses that an existing X-ray image, which the Examiner reads on the dentition characteristic, is used to position the moveable parts of the X-ray apparatus not to generate a set of image parameter settings capable of being applied to the acquired X-ray image data (col. 4, 11. 21-31). Dalpiaz also discloses at lines 31-35 of column 4, that the intensity of the radiation from both the radiation source and the sensor can be determined from current and voltage parameters. This portion of Dalpiaz relates to determining the intensity of radiation coming from both the source and the sensor not generating a set of image parameter settings capable of being applied to the acquired X-ray image data. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining rejections because each of the remaining claims requires the subject matter we have found missing in Dalpiaz. 3 Appeal2014-004273 Application 12/775,681 DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 4