Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2014

12044142 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte SEBASTIAN SCHMIDT and SABINE SCHAEFFER-KUNDLER
___________

Appeal 2012-003588
Application 12/044,1421
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Sebastian Schmidt and Sabine Schaeffer-Kundler (Appellants) seek
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision to finally reject
claims 2–11 and 13–18, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Appeal Brief identifies Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1).
2 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed
September 20, 2011, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed December 19,
2011, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed October 17, 2011.
Appeal 2012-003588
Application 12/044,142

2

Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method and system “to
enable following an examination or treatment of a patient by means of an
imaging medical examination device from an external data processing
device with associated monitor within a facility system having a number of
different imaging medical examination devices” (Spec. 1).
Claim 17, which is reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
17. A method for enabling remote tracking of a medical
procedure in which image data will be acquired, selected from
the group consisting of medical examinations and medical
treatments, to be implemented by a medical procedure
apparatus, said remote tracking being implemented from an
external data processing device at a location remote from the
medical procedure apparatus implementing the medical
procedure, said external data processing device having a
monitor and an input unit associated therewith, and said
medical procedure apparatus at which the image data will be
acquired being among a plurality of different medical procedure
apparatuses at a medical facility, said method comprising the
steps of:
in a facility data base of said medical facility,
storing associated patient and apparatus data that
designate which patient, from among all patients of said
medical facility, is scheduled to interact with each
medical procedure apparatus among said plurality of
different medical procedure apparatuses;
from said external data processing device,
accessing said associated patient and apparatus data from
said facility data base and displaying the associated
patient and apparatus data at said monitor of said external
processing device;
via said input unit of said external data processing
device, making a selection among said associated patient
and apparatus data displayed at said monitor or said
Appeal 2012-003588
Application 12/044,142

3

external processing device, in a selection procedure from
the group consisting of (a) selecting a specific patient
from among the associated patient and apparatus data and
(b) selecting a specific apparatus from among said
associated patient and apparatus data;
while image data are being acquired from the
specific patient at the specific medical procedure
apparatus, establishing a data communication connection
between said external data processing device and said
specific medical procedure apparatus and, via said data
communication connection, presenting said image data at
said monitor of said external processing device during
acquisition of said image data by said specific medical
procedure apparatus.
(App. Br. 19–20, Claims App’x).
Rejections
Claims 2–11 and 13–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DiRienzo (US 6,006,191, iss. Dec. 21, 1999) and
Gritzbach (US 7,574,371 B2, iss. Aug. 11, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Claims 17 and 18
Appellants argue claims 17 and 18 as a group (App. Br. 6). We select
claim 17 as representative, and claim 18 stands or falls with claim 17.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred because the combination of DiRienzo and Gritzbach does not disclose
the ability “to allow a physician to select a patient and/or medical apparatus
for an examination that is yet to be implemented” (App. Br. 9–10). Claim 17
does not require that the physician be allowed to select procedures that are
not yet implemented, and we decline to read this limitation into the claims.
Appeal 2012-003588
Application 12/044,142

4

See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim
term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred because the combination of DiRienzo and Gritzbach does not disclose:
a method or a system that allows a physician to monitor an
ongoing medical procedure, and to select the ongoing medical
procedure that the physician would like to monitor by
displaying for the physician, at a location remote from the site
of the examination or procedure, patient and apparatus data that
identify all patients that are currently undergoing medical
examination, together with data indicating which medical
apparatus is being used for each patient
(App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4). On the contrary, we find that the cited portion of
DiRienzo discloses arranging imaging information by patient name
(DiRienzo, col. 3, ll. 25–41, col. 4, ll. 14–27) and the cited portion of
Gritzbach discloses allowing the physician to select an ongoing medical
procedure that the physician would like to monitor by displaying for the
physician, at a location remote from the site of the examination or
procedure, data indicating which medical apparatus is being used for each
patient (col. 5, l. 55–col. 6, l. 27). Thus, we find the combination of the two
references discloses, at least facially, presenting information for selecting an
ongoing medical procedure by both patient and imaging device. Appellants
have not adequately articulated any deficiency in the Examiner’s logic.
Accordingly, Appellants have not met their burden of persuasion of
overcoming the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[o]nce a prima facie case of
obviousness [is] established..., the burden shift[s] to appellant to rebut it”).
Appeal 2012-003588
Application 12/044,142

5

Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that it would
not have been obvious to combine DiRienzo and Gritzbach (App. Br. 10–
14). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of the patient file
exchange of DiRienzo with the real-time imaging device monitoring of
Gritzbach would have been the predictable combination of known elements,
where each element would perform essentially the same function in the
combination, as it separately performed (Ans. 10). We find that a person of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
DiRienzo and Gritzbach to provide greater flexibility in searching for
procedures and for real-time monitoring of ongoing procedures, with the
benefit of greater ease of use and improving the timeliness of medical
treatment. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the
rejection of claims 17 and 18.
Dependent Claims 2–11 and 13–16
Appellants assert that dependent claims 2–11 “add further steps to the
non-obvious method of claim 17, and claims 12–16 add further components
or features to the non-obvious system of claim 18” (App. Br. 14). Even
assuming that Appellants intended to rely upon the additional limitations of
these dependent claims, Appellants’ one sentence statement is insufficient to
constitute a separate argument as to the patentability of these claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
Appellants additionally assert that the dependent claims are patentable
for the same reasons Appellants raised with respect to the independent
claims (App. Br. 14). Thus, for the reasons we explained in the context of
claim 17, we sustain the rejections of claims 2–11 and 13–16.
Appeal 2012-003588
Application 12/044,142

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–11 and 13–18 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

mls