Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2020000088 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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. 14/623,273 02/16/2015 Karlheinz DORN 32860-002378-US 3003 30596 7590 08/02/2021 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O.BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER YU, XIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2455 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com jhill@hdp.com siemensgroup@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARLHEINZ DORN Appeal 2020-000088 Application 14/623,273 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9–12, 15, and 18–22. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000088 Application 14/623,273 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an efficient method for accessing image data stored in a cloud. Appellant describes the claimed subject matter as follows: At least one embodiment of the present invention generally relates to a method for accessing image data stored in a cloud, the method being carried out by a device. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for accessing image data stored in a cloud, the method being carried out by a device, the method comprising: transmitting, by the device, a request to the cloud to access the image data; receiving, at the device, an access path to the image data from the cloud; determining, by the device, whether the image data is in a first data format or in a second data format; and when the image data are in the first data format, then reading, by the device, the image data from the cloud via the access path; converting, by the device, the image data inside the device into the second data format; uploading, by the device, the image data converted into the second data format from the device to the cloud; modifying, by the device, the access path according to a modification rule, with a result that the access path is usable to discern that the image data are stored in the cloud in the second data format; and storing, by the device, the modified access path to the cloud. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix)(emphasis added). Appeal 2020-000088 Application 14/623,273 3 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references as prior art: Name Reference Date Danner US 2009/0103789 A1 Apr. 23, 2009 Keefe US 2015/0134365 A1 May 14, 2015 REJECTION Claims 1–7, 9–12, 15, and 18–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danner and Keefe. Final Act. 6. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Danner and Keefe teaches or suggests “modifying, by the device, the access path according to a modification rule, with a result that the access path is usable to discern that the image data are stored in the cloud in the second data format,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Danner and Keefe. Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner finds the limitation “modifying, by the device, the access path according to a modification rule, with a result that the access path is usable to discern that the image data are stored in the cloud in the second data format” taught by Danner. Final Act. 9 (citing Danner ¶¶ 22–24, 34–36). The Examiner explains that “Danner discloses that users are able to manipulate or modify DICOM images and move the DICOM images to different studies or series, 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-000088 Application 14/623,273 4 via a browser that is at a local system.” Final Act. 9 (citing Danner ¶¶ 34– 36). The Examiner further finds “Danner also discloses that users can select a study or studies to send to the server, and the users are allowed to attach relevant non-DICOM files or documents to any [DICOM image file]. Any file(s) that did not have a DICOM header file prefix would be clearly identified as non-DICOM files.” Final Act. 9 (citing Danner ¶¶ 22–24) (internal citations omitted). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “[w]hile paragraph [0022] of Danner does disclose that ‘DICOM image files may be differentiated over non-DICOM image files by examining a header of each of the files,’ Danner does not disclose modifying the files to remove a DICOM header file prefix.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant further asserts the cited disclosure in Danner “at best simply discloses how a DICOM file is identified,” but does not “disclose modifying an access path to facilitate such distinguishing.” Reply Br. 6. We are persuaded of reversible Examiner error. Danner describes a system designed to “facilitate the delivery and receipt of DICOM image files.” Danner ¶ 20. Danner’s system includes an “embedded browser control for locating, sorting, selecting, compressing, validating, and securely transferring DICOM images files from a local system . . . to a central web portal operating on a server.” Danner ¶ 21. Danner teaches that users can search for DICOM images using the embedded browser control, and that “DICOM images files may be differentiated over non-DICOM images files by examining a heading in each of the files.” Danner ¶ 22. Danner further explains that “[t]his method [of differentiation] bypasses the need for the traditional DICOMDIR file, which generally contains file locations and Appeal 2020-000088 Application 14/623,273 5 description information of DICOM image files.” Id. Danner teaches that the embedded browser control can provide DICOM image header and series management by “allow[ing] a user to interface with a GUI to modify the characteristics of the series and other heading information in the DICOM image files.” Danner ¶ 31. The browser control also allows for conversion of DICOM images to other formats, such as JPEG snapshots which allow a user to preview the DICOM images, and based on the preview provided by the snapshots, a user may move DICOM images between series or studies on the server. Danner ¶¶ 32–33. When moving the DICOM images to a new series, modifications are made to the DICOM header fields reflecting the new series, including SeriesDescription, SeriesNumber, and ImageNumber, and then the physical files are moved to a new location on the server “consistent with the new series.” Danner ¶ 34. Although Danner’s description of moving DICOM images to a new series modifies the access path for the DICOM images, when the DICOM images are moved to a new series, the format of the DICOM images does not change to a second data format. As such, the modified access path is not “usable to discern that the image data are stored in the cloud in the second data format” as the argued limitation requires. Moreover, Danner’s description of converting DICOM images to JPEG files does not address the above noted deficiency. The conversion to JPEG files is for the purpose of allowing a user to preview a DICOM series for the purpose of series management. There is no teaching in Danner that any access path to the DICOM images is changed to allow indicating that the stored images are in a JPEG format. In fact, nothing in Danner indicates that JPG images are ever Appeal 2020-000088 Application 14/623,273 6 used as anything more than snapshot preview images, nor does Danner indicate that an access path to those JPG images is ever provided by the system. As such, the DICOM to JPG conversion capability described by Danner does not teach a modified access path “with a result that the access path is usable to discern that the image data are stored in the cloud in the second data format,” as recited in the argued limitation. We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Danner do not teach or suggest the argued limitation, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Remaining Claims Claim 9 is independent and recites a limitation commensurate in scope to the argued limitation discussed above. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 9. The remaining claims are dependent, and stand together with their respective base claim. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–12, 15, 18–22 103 Danner, Keefe 1–7, 9–12, 15, 18–22 REVERSED