Ex Parte ROUTH et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 16, 2016

13293505 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/293,505 11/10/2011 Helen ROUTH 24737 7590 03/18/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 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. 2002P02943 US02 2482 EXAMINER LUBIN, VALERIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2016 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): debbie.henn@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HELEN ROUTH, ADRIAN WARNER, KEVIN BRADLEY, and EARL CANFIELD Appeal2013-008589 Application 13/293,505 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 30-36 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-008589 Application 13/293,505 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to medical imaging system architectures (Spec. 1 :5-7). Claim 30, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 30. A method of using a data network of a health care facility and a data processor of the health care facility connected to the data network to form a diagnostic imaging system with additional components connected to the network comprising: [ 1] accessing a data network of a health care facility having ports in the facility to which components used for diagnostic imaging may be connected, the data network being connected to a data processor of the health care facility; [2] installing diagnostic image signal processing software on the data processor of the health care facility; [3] coupling a plurality of display units structured to display diagnostic images to ports of the data network in the facility; [ 4] coupling a portable diagnostic signal acquisition unit to a port of the data network in the facility which is in proximity to a display unit coupled to a port of the data network; [5] coupling a portable control unit to a port of the data network which is in proximity to the diagnostic signal acquisition unit and the display unit which is in proximity to the diagnostic signal acquisition unit; [ 6] operating the control unit to control diagnostic imaging by the diagnostic signal acquisition unit; [7] transmitting diagnostic signals produced by the diagnostic signal acquisition unit over the data network to the data processor of the health care facility; [8] processing the diagnostic signals produced by the diagnostic signal acquisition unit with the data processor of the health care facility using the installed diagnostic image signal processing software to produce image data; [9] transmitting the image data produced by the data processor of the health care facility to the display unit which is in proximity to the diagnostic signal acquisition unit; and 2 Appeal2013-008589 Application 13/293,505 [ l OJ displaying a medical diagnostic image on the display unit using the image data produced by the data processor of the health care facility, [ 11] wherein diagnostic images acquired by the diagnostic signal acquisition unit are processed by the data processor of the health care facility, viewed on the display unit proximal the diagnostic signal acquisition unit and the imaging procedure controlled by the proximal control unit during a diagnostic imaging examination. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McMorrow (US 6,569,097 Bl, iss. May 27, 2003) and Wood (US 5,715,823, iss. Feb. 10, 1998). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence 1. ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 30 is improper because the prior art McMorrow "does not enable a physician to use the data processor at his or her health care facility" (Appeal Br. 13). The Appellants argue that in McMorrow that instead the processing is done at a "remote" location (Appeal Br. 13). The Appellants cite elements of claim limitations 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2013-008589 Application 13/293,505 [2], [3], [7], [8], and [11] as showing a relation to a data processor at the physician's health care facility (Appeal Br. 13, 14, Reply Br. 2--4). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that rejection is proper (Ans. 3-8). The Examiner has determined that the claim does not require the use of a data processor at the health care facility as argued, but rather only a "data processor of the health care facility". The Examiner has determined that the claim limitations argued are broad enough to read on being a processor "associated" with the health care facility (Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner. Here, the claim limitation [3] for example requires "installing diagnostic image signal processing software on the data processor of the health care facility". The cited claim limitation [3] does not require that the data processor be specifically located "in" the health care facility, but rather only the data processor be "of' the health care facility. This claim construction is supported by the Specification at page 13, lines 1--4, which only requires that the imaging software run on a platform. Further, Figure 3 shows data processors and information systems (62, 74) merely located on a platform of some kind and not necessarily "in" a health care facility. The Appellants have only argued for claim elements [2], [3], [7], [8], and [11] in regard to their showing a relation to a data processor of the physician's health care facility, but this is not a requirement of the claim and this element of the claim limitations has been shown in Morrow's use of remote server database 18. Regardless, here there are a finite number of locations where the data processing can take place, either on-site or off-site and the modification to place such data processing in the facility for quicker physical access to the system if desired would have been an obvious modification. For these reasons the rejection of claim 31 is 4 Appeal2013-008589 Application 13/293,505 sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 30-36 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5