Ex Parte Selcho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 2017

13675825 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/675,825 11/13/2012 Michael Selcho 02580-P0331A 2993 131672 7590 Whitmyer IP Group LLC 600 Summer Street 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 06/26/2017 EXAMINER MATTHEWS, TESSA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3733 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL SELCHO, HANS-UWE HILZINGER, and DEVON BREAM Appeal 2015-008017 Application 13/675,8251 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael Selcho et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plummer (US 2006/0152516 Al, pub. July 13, 2006), Curl (US 2012/0278759 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2012), and Bimkrant (US 2008/0249370 Al, pub. Oct. 9, 2008). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Karl Storz Imaging, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Feb. 4, 2015). Appeal 2015-008017 Application 13/675,825 INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to “a medical image routing system utilized in an operating room providing streamlined image routing in the event of an emergency.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An operating room control system comprising: a computer having a network connection; a storage accessible by said computer; an interface coupled to said computer that provides for connection to: an imaging device generating endoscope image data; an input device; and a video laryngoscope, where the video laryngoscope generates laryngoscope image data; a display coupled to said interface where endoscope image data is routed to and shown on said display when said imaging device is connected to the system and when said input device is manually activated selecting said imaging device as an input and selecting said display as an output to receive the endoscope image data; wherein upon manual activation of the input device by selecting said video laryngoscope as an input, routing of the endoscope image data to said display is automatically interrupted and said display is automatically selected by said system as the output such that the laryngoscope image data is automatically routed to said display when a video laryngoscope is connected to the system. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 12 recite an operating room control system that, inter alia, automatically interrupts the routing of endoscope image data 2 Appeal 2015-008017 Application 13/675,825 to a display and automatically routes laryngoscope image data to the display in response to manual activation of an input device to select the video laryngoscope as an input. Appeal Br. 12, 14. Regarding this limitation, Appellants complain that the Examiner fails to properly demonstrate Plummer teaches, “automatically routing [to] a destination when another source is selected.” Id. at 5. In addition, Appellants contend the Examiner misplaces any reliance on Curl because it teaches away from the claimed combination. Id. at 7—8. Having considered Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the Final Office Action from which this appeal was taken (Ans. 14— 15; Final Act. 3—5, 9-11, 13—14), we are not persuaded Appellants’ complaints have merit. Appellants agree, “Plummer discloses that a user may select a source (24) [of medical image data] and may select a destination (26) [that displays the medical images] generated from the image data,” but contend this fact does not necessarily mean Plummer also teaches routing to the same destination automatically when another subsequent source is selected. Appeal Br. 5. Citing paragraphs 50 and 60, the Examiner finds Plummer “discloses that when a source is selected, the images displayed will change to [the] images generated from the newly selected source, thus automatically interrupting the [displayed] image data[,] and the [new] image data is automatically routed to said display.” Final Act. 3. Further explaining this finding, in the Answer at page 14, the Examiner states, [paragraph [0060] states that “when the user presses a source icon 34, thereby selecting a particular source, the images appearing in the display window 40 will change to images generated from the image data supplied from the newly selected 3 Appeal 2015-008017 Application 13/675,825 source . . therefore Plummer discloses automatic routing of a destination for images or data from a selected source as the images automatically change when the user presses the source icon. Appellants criticize the Examiner’s support because it refers to a “display window 40” (Plummer calls 40 a “preview window”), which is never selected as a destination. Appeal Br. 6. This argument is unavailing, however, because Plummer clearly represents that the images displayed in window 40 are also being routed to the selected destination 26. See Plummer || 52, 62. We, thus, do not agree with Appellants that Plummer fails to show it was known to automatically route to a destination when another subsequent source is selected. The Examiner’s reasoning, which a preponderance of the evidence supports, is persuasive. Regarding Appellants’ argument that Curl teaches away from using manual selection, we are persuaded by the Examiner that this argument is misplaced. The Examiner notes the rejection relies on Curl “to teach that [the] display may be automatically selected by the system as the output,” and not relied upon to teach a detection means. Final Act. 14 (citing Curl 1170). As such, we understand the Examiner’s reliance on Curl is to further demonstrate those of skill knew how to configure a control system to interrupt image data being displayed to automatically display image data from a newly identified source in response to a pre-established condition. While the pre-established condition in Curl may be the identity of a source with a higher priority classification, Curl fails to provide any teaching that the automatic display feature is incompatible with manually selecting the image data source. To the contrary, as the Examiner points out, Curl teaches a system that allows a user to select image data from an instrument with a 4 Appeal 2015-008017 Application 13/675,825 lower priority, which would then automatically interrupt the higher priority image data being displayed and automatically display the image data from the selected instrument. Ans. 15 (citing Curl 1171). Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reliance on Curl was improper because Curl does not discourage or lead a skilled artisan away from Appellants’ claimed combination. Appellants also make similar arguments regarding dependent claim 2, which further limits claim 1 to a control system “wherein activation of the input device a second time, routing of the laryngoscope image data to said display is interrupted and routing of endoscope image data to said display is reestablished.” Appeal Br. 9-10. Claim 12 includes similar language. Id. at 14—15 (Claims App.). For the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by determining that the prior art discloses this additional limitation. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 12, as well as, claims 3—11 and 13—16, which Appellants have not argued are separately patentable. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5