Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 17, 2012

11125935 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS _____________ Appeal 2010-004650 Application 11/125,935 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEVIN F. TURNER and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-27 which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2010-004650 Application 11/125,935 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to accessing a DICOM server to retrieve or store digital medical images and reducing the security burden of the DICOM server. See Spec. [0001]. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A system to submit image requests to a DICOM server, said system comprising a first data manager operationally interfacing between a first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server and administering a first security policy between said first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server, wherein each of said first plurality of computer-based platforms is capable of generating an image request, and wherein said DICOM server is capable of receiving and responding to said image request. REFERENCES Kondo US 2005/0251020 A1 Nov. 10, 2005 (filed May 2, 2005) Blakley US 7,039,714 B1 May. 2, 2006 (filed Jan. 19, 2000) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kondo and Blakley. Ans. 3-5. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Kondo and Blakley collectively teach “a first data manager operationally interfacing between a first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server and administering a Appeal 2010-004650 Application 11/125,935 3 first security policy between said first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server ” as independent claim 1 recites? ANALYSIS Appellant presents arguments with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-27 are not argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 4. Appellant argues that neither Kondo nor Blakley discloses the above limitation in claim 1. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Kondo generally describes storing and retrieving image files to/from a DlCOM server, but Kondo does not describe a data manager interfacing between a plurality of computer-based platforms and a DICOM server and administering a security policy therebetween.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner relies on the combination of Kondo and Blakley to meet this limitation. Ans. 10. Kondo discloses “a[n] image file receiving unit 21 for receiving the DICOM files, generated at the modality 9 via the LAN 15, an image file storage unit 22 for storing therein the DICOM files received by the image file receiving unit 21” (Kondo [0049]) and that “or a plurality of client viewers may be provided” (Kondo [0040]). See Ans. 3 and 6. Blakley discloses that an SSO server manages usernames and passwords and carries out an authentication scheme to authenticate users in order to give the users access to a resource. Blakley, col. 5, ll. 25-35. Based on these portions of Kondo and Blakley, we conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Kondo and Blakley suggests a data manager interfacing with a DICOM server and a plurality of computers and administering a security policy. Ans. 5-6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the Appeal 2010-004650 Application 11/125,935 4 combination of Kondo and Blakley suggests “a first data manager operationally interfacing between a first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server and administering a first security policy between said first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server.” Appellant further argues that the “claimed subject matter of the present application, when given its broadest interpretation, does not implement an SSO service, does not use an intermediate server to impersonate a user, and does not perform identity mapping of user platforms ” , and “is not [, as Blakley teaches,] attempting to give a user the appearance of having a single user account having a single password when, within an enterprise, the user may have multiple accounts, perhaps with multiple passwords.” See App. Br. 7.. We are not persuaded by this argument. This argument is not commensurate with the claim scope. Claim 1 does not specifically include or exclude impersonating a user, identity mapping, or giving the user the appearance of a single user account and password. Claim 1 simply recites “administering a first security policy.” The Examiner notes that “[t]he claims are sufficiently broad that an SSO server meets the limitation of ‘first data manager’ [administering a security policy] in claims 1 and 17.” Ans. 6. As noted above, Blakley discloses an SSO server that manages a security policy. Blakley, col. 5, ll. 25-35. We conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that the SSO server of Blakley is encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “first data manager . . . administering a first security policy” in the context of the invention and as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 6. Appeal 2010-004650 Application 11/125,935 5 For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kondo and Blakely. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-27 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tj