Ex Parte Baumgart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2014

11610591 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/610,591 12/14/2006 John Baumgart 2006P22073US01 3012
28524 7590 06/03/2014
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
LEGGETT, ANDREA C.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2014 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 JOHN BAUMGART1
__________

Appeal 2012-002769
Application 11/610,591
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to a
method for selecting an image for display during a radiographic examination,
which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Siemens Medical Solutions
USA Inc. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-002769
Application 11/610,591

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states that
[t]here are several different types of anatomical images that are
displayed on a monitor display in a patient examination room
during acquisition of the anatomical images . . . :
1) Live x-ray images;
2) Previous x-ray images; and
3) Other images or data, including a directory of images
to be reviewed.

(Spec. 1:22-28.)
The live x-ray image is generally not removed from the monitor, so if
a user wishes to change the previous x-ray image being displayed,
the reviewed image is removed to display images from the third
category, e.g., a graphical directory or group of small images,
e.g., a 2 x 2, a 4 x 4, etc., similar to a sheet of postage stamps, is
displayed from which the user will choose what to review next
(id. at 1:32 to 2:4), using a mouse or joystick. The Specification states that
this process thus “requires removing the images from the monitor . . . [and]
the selection process is cumbersome and slow” (id. at 2:10-12).
Claims 1-23 are on appeal. Claim 9 is illustrative and reads as follows
(emphasis added):
9. A method of selecting an anatomical image for display during a
radiographic examination comprising the steps of:
providing:
a main image display displaying at least one anatomical image
provided by an X-ray imaging system and comprising an overhead panel
display separated from a patient examination bed;
a touch-screen display located in close proximity and substantially
adjacent a patient examination bed and at a different location than said main
image display and being separate from said main image display; said touch
screen display and said main image display being in the same room together
with said patient examination bed and said main image display being
Appeal 2012-002769
Application 11/610,591

3
separated and more distant from said patient examination table than said
touch screen display;
displaying at least one of a selection of graphical directories of X-ray
anatomical images on the touch-screen display, said graphical directories
indicating a plurality of different anatomical images interchangeably
displayable in full size on said main image display in response to user
command; and
displaying a full size X-ray anatomical image on said main image
display in response to user selection of at least one image using at least one
of the selection of graphical directories of X-ray anatomical images on the
touch-screen display.

Claims 1 and 16, the only other independent claims, are directed to an
imaging system and an interfaced touch-screen display, respectively, and
both claims also require displaying a graphical directory of X-ray images
that are interchangeably displayable in full size on a main image display in
response to user command.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious based on Viswanathan2 and Pelizzari3 (Ans. 5). The Examiner
finds that Viswanathan discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 except
locating a touch-screen display and a main display in the same room
together with a patient examination bed (id. at 10-12). In particular, the
Examiner finds that Viswanathan teaches “displaying at least one of a
selection of graphical directories of X-ray anatomical images on the touch-
screen display (Figs. 3-4J, 8A-8B, 14-22A, 23A, 24A, 25A, 26A, 28-30C,
and 33-47)” (id. at 11).

2 US 2006/0036125 A1, published February 16, 2006.
3 US 2006/0113482 A1, published June 1, 2006.
Appeal 2012-002769
Application 11/610,591

4
Appellant argues, among other things, that “Viswanathan with
Pelizarri [sic] fails to show or suggest ‘graphical directories indicating a
plurality of different anatomical images interchangeably displayable in full
size in response to user command’ using the touch screen” (App. Br. 12).
Appellant argues that “Viswanathan fails to even mention a directory at all
and certainly not ‘graphical directories’ presented on a ‘touchscreen’” (id.).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding that
Viswanathan teaches “displaying at least one of a selection of graphical
directories of X-ray anatomical images on the touch-screen display” (Ans.
11, quoting claim 9) is not supported by the evidence. The Examiner cites
Viswanathan’s Figures 3-4J, 8A-8B, 14-22A, 23A, 24A, 25A, 26A, 28-30C,
and 33-47 (id.). The Examiner does not specify which element in the cited
figures she considers to be a graphical directory, but her interpretation seems
clear from the reliance of Figures 8A and 8B, which are reproduced below:

Appeal 2012-002769
Application 11/610,591

5

Figures 8A and 8B show two embodiments of a “2-D navigation
pane” (Viswanathan 1, ¶¶ 22, 23). The images displayed on the pane
“allow[ ] the user to select the desired orientation of distal end of [a] medical
device as indicated by the arrow” (id. at 5, ¶ 104).
Viswanathan states that “the pane 110 can have three graphic displays
160, 162 and 164, corresponding to the three planes of rotation” (id. at 5,
¶ 105). More specifically,
display 160 contains a graphic depiction of the coronal or
frontal plane (i.e., a[ ] caricature image of a patient’s body in
the coronal or frontal plane), . . . [d]isplay 162 contains a
graphic depiction of the median or saggital plane (i.e., a
caricature image of a patient’s body in the median or saggital
plane), . . . [and] [d]isplay 164 contains a graphic depiction of
the horizontal or transverse plane (i.e., a caricature image of a
patient’s body in the horizontal or transverse plane).
(Id. at 5-6, ¶ 105.)
Thus, the images in Viswanathan that the Examiner cites as the
“graphical directories” required by claim 9 are caricature images of a
patient’s body, which can be used to select a desired orientation of the distal
end of a medical device.
Appeal 2012-002769
Application 11/610,591

6
Claim 9, however, requires “displaying at least one of a selection of
graphical directories of X-ray anatomical images on the touch-screen
display, said graphical directories indicating a plurality of different
anatomical images interchangeably displayable in full size on said main
image display in response to user command” (emphasis added). The images
cited by the Examiner in Viswanathan are not X-ray anatomical images nor
are they interchangeably displayable on a main image display in response to
a user command. They therefore do not meet the limitations of the graphical
directories recited in claim 9.
As noted above, the other independent claims also require the same
graphical directories, and therefore so do all of the dependent claims.
Because the Examiner has not shown that the cited references disclose this
limitation, and has not provided sound reasoning why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would nonetheless have considered it obvious to include it in
Viswanathan’s system, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Viswanathan and Pelizzari.

REVERSED

kmm