Ex Parte Higgins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2014

12065426 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEWART HIGGINS and BERT VERDONCK
____________________

Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,4261
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The real party in interest, identified by Appellants, is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V., Eindhoven, NL. App. Br. 3.
2 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed August 23,
2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 1, 2011), and the
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed March 22, 2011).
Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,426

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “medical information
technology and medical imaging, and particularly to the transmission and
manipulation of medical images and data” (Spec. 1, ll. 2–5).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving information indicative of desired medical
image data, a desired presentation of the medical image data,
and a desired application software; and
generating a computer readable data structure which
includes
the desired medical image data;
presentation data which specifies the desired
presentation of the medical image data; and
the desired application software wherein, in
operation, the application software presents the desired
medical image data in human readable form in
accordance with the presentation data.

REJECTION
Claims 1–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Benjamin (US 2007/0300270 A1, pub. Dec. 27, 2007).

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 14, and 15
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Benjamin does not
disclose or suggest that “the application software presents the desired
medical image data in human readable form in accordance with the
presentation data,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14
Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,426

3
and 15 (Br. 5–6). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper, and
cites paragraphs 29–37, 155, and 174 of Benjamin as disclosing the argued
limitation (Ans. 7 and 15–16). We agree with the Examiner.
Benjamin discloses an interactive system and method for allowing a
user to obtain image data for diagnostic purposes from a server having
access to stored data. The user’s computer is connected to the server over a
communication network to receive image data requested by the user and
software for reconstructing a diagnostic quality image from the image data
(Benjamin ¶¶ 29–37 and 174; see also Abstract). Benjamin describes at
paragraph 155, cited by the Examiner, that a typical medical image
acquisition session begins with a data request made by the user, and that
“[u]pon such a request, the server will download, to the user’s machine, a
network application applet,” which “will serve as the user’s application in all
future interactions with the server.” Then, “[a]fter a short authorization and
authentication procedure, the user will be presented with an opportunity to
request medical data” (Benjamin ¶ 155).
Appellants maintain that paragraph 155 appears to be the only place in
Benjamin where the network application applet is discussed, and that
Benjamin nowhere states that the network application applet presents the
desired medical image data in human readable form in accordance with the
presentation data (Br. 5). Benjamin, however, explicitly states in
paragraph 155 that the network application applet “will serve as the user’s
application in all future interactions with the server.” We agree with the
Examiner that because the applet is used in all such interactions with the
server, “it is implied that this applet does all the functions of Benjamin et al.
from the user’s side” and it is also implied, “[s]ince Benjamin et al.
Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,426

4
discusses a computer program that will request and display the images,” that
“this downloaded applet will present the medical images in the desired
format” (Ans. 15).
Appellants note that Benjamin explicitly states at paragraph 174 that
the user receives and displays the images. And Appellants argue that “since
the user displays the images . . . Benjamin does not teach or suggest
application software that presents desired medial [sic] image data in human
readable form in accordance with the presentation data,” as recited in
claim 1 (Br. 5). The difficulty with Appellants’ argument is that no
software, other than the applet, is disclosed in Benjamin for performing the
image downloading and viewing. And Appellants offer no alternative
method for displaying the medical images. We agree with the Examiner that
[t]he only reasonable interpretation is that the applet[,] which
“will serve as the user’s application in all future interactions
with the server” (see par. [0155] of Benjamin et al.)[,] is
receiving “a number of medical images, of various modalities,
which are available for transmission through the server”
(see par. [0156] of Benjamin et al.) and “displays the images”
(see par. [0174] of Benjamin et al.).

(Ans. 17).
Appellants next argue that Benjamin does not disclose or suggest
“generating a computer readable data structure,” as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims 14 and 15, and that nothing in the Non-Final or
Final Office Actions addresses the claimed “generating” (Br. 6–7). In fact,
this limitation was specifically addressed in the Final Office Action
(see Final Rej. 5). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that, absent a
controlling definition in the Specification, under a broad, but reasonable
interpretation, “any and all information on a computer can be considered
Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,426

5
part of a data structure,” including the applet and medical image data that
Benjamin discloses are downloaded to the user’s computer (Ans. 16).
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to address
“generating presentation data which specifies a desired presentation of the
image data,” as recited in claim 15, and, therefore, has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 15 (Br. 7). In this
regard, Appellants contend that although the Non-Final Office Action states
that claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, the
rationale used to reject claim 1 does not address this feature of claim 15
(Br. 7–8). Appellants also assert that “the Office [in the Final Office Action]
argues that the user generates the presentation data,” and argue that “if the
user generates the presentation data . . . Benjamin does not teach or suggest a
computer readable storage medium containing instructions which, when
executed by a computer, carry out a method that comprises generating
presentation data which specifies a desired presentation of the image data,”
as recited in claim 15 (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the rationale used
to reject claim 1 does not address the argued limitation of claim 15.
Addressing claim 1 (and more particularly, the recitation in claim 1 of
“presentation data which specifies the desired presentation of the medical
image data”), the Examiner cites paragraphs 172 and 174 of Benjamin,
which disclose that a user may specify, out of an entire image case (which
for a typical CT case may contain 50–100 medical images), a subset of
images and/or a region of interest in a limited number of images for display.
This user selection is transmitted from the user’s computer to the server over
a communication line so that the images transmitted back can be
Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,426

6
downloaded and presented, i.e., by the network application applet, in the
preferred manner (Ans. 7 and 14).
Benjamin describes at paragraph 155 that after an authorization and
authentication procedure, a user will be presented with an opportunity to
request medical data from the system server using the communication
capabilities of the user’s machine. Benjamin does not explicitly describe
how the user’s input data request, which identifies the desired images, is
processed at the user’s computer before being communicated to the server.
However, the only reasonable interpretation is that the user’s input
information, indicative of the desired medical image data, is processed at the
user’s computer to generate data that specifies the desired set of images,
i.e., “presentation data,” for transmission to the server; otherwise, the server
would have no way of identifying the images for download.
In our view, receiving user input information indicative of the desired
image data, and using that information at the user’s computer to generate
data (for communication to the server) that specifies the desired set of
images, as disclosed in Benjamin, meets the language of claim 15 under a
broad, but reasonable, interpretation. This interpretation, moreover, is
consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which describes that a user may
desire to have image data presented in a particular way, either for sharing
with one or more colleagues or for his or her own use. The user may, thus,
input presentation information used to specify a desired presentation of an
image dataset, one or more key images, and/or an orientation for presenting
the rendered image (Spec. 8, l. 16 – 9, l. 2 and 9, ll. 20–27). The user’s input
information is then used by application software resident on the user’s
Appeal 2012-004428
Application 12/065,426

7
computer “to generate presentation data” so that the image data is presented
in the specified manner (Spec. 11, ll. 23-25 and 12, ll. 3–4).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 2–13 and 16–27
Claims 2–13 and 16–27 depend from independent claims 1 and 15,
respectively. Appellants do not present any arguments for the separate
patentability of claims 2–13 and 16–27 except to argue that the dependent
claims are allowable based on their dependence on claims 1 and 15 (Br. 8).
We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–13 and 16–27 for
the same reasons.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

tkl