Ex Parte Kondo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 12, 2014

11071187 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKASHI KONDO and KENICHI NIWA __________ Appeal 2012-003610 Application 11/071,187 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003610 Application 11/071,187 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to “a computer system analyzing apparatus and a computer system analyzing method, both for checking whether a computer system such as a medical image observing system has a problem or not.” Specification 1. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 27. A computer system analyzing apparatus comprising: a storage section; a unit which generates historical information by storing user information and monitor information in the storage section in association with each other every time a user observes a medical image by use of one of monitors that display the medical image, the user information indicating the user observing the medical image, the monitor information indicating one of the monitors that displays the medical images, wherein based on the historical information, a history of use of the monitors by the user is determinable; a unit which determines one of the monitors, which is being used by the user, as a currently used monitor; a determining unit which determines a monitor which is ordinarily used by the user by analyzing the historical information stored in the storage section, as an ordinarily used monitor; Appeal 2012-003610 Application 11/071,187 3 a detecting unit which detects, as an unreasonable state, a state in which a resolution of the currently used monitor is lower than a resolution of the ordinarily used monitor; and an informing unit which informs the user that there is a possibility that processing which is performed by the currently used monitor could not be performed, when the detecting unit detects the unreasonable state. Rejection on Appeal Claims 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Wong (U.S. Patent Number 6,260,021 B1; issued July 10, 2001), Kelley (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0082864 A1; published June 27, 2002), and Dumarot (U.S. Reissued Patent Number RE38,865 E; reissued November 1, 2005). Answer 4–8. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 30, 2011), the Answer (mailed October 31, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed December 22, 2011) for the respective details. Appellants argue the grounds for rejection are erroneous because Kelley discloses analyzing medical resources and suggesting upgrades and “makes no disclosure or suggestion whatsoever of comparing the resolution of a monitor ordinarily used with the user with a resolution of a monitor currently being used by a user.” Appeal Brief 7. The Examiner finds Kelley discloses detecting an unreasonable state when the current employed monitor resolution is lower than the user’s ordinary employed monitor resolution as required in both independent Appeal 2012-003610 Application 11/071,187 4 claims 27 and 30. Answer 6, 8 (citing Kelley paragraphs 29, 41 on both pages). We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings, and we find Appellants’ arguments persuasive, because not only does Kelley fail to disclose detection of a monitor’s resolution, Kelley also fails to disclose comparing a monitor’s resolution with another monitor as recited in both claims 27 and 30. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 27 and 30, as well as dependent claim 29,for the reasons articulated above. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) rejection of claims 27, 29, and 30 is reversed. REVERSED msc