Ex Parte Conroy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2017

13817456 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 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.
13/817,456 02/18/2013 Meghan Conroy 13CPF01 6599
111191 7590
CrownoverLaw
P.O. Box 5415
Pleasanton, CA 94566
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2017 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):
robert @ crownoverlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEGHAN CONROY
Appeal 2017-007714
Application 13/817,4561
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3—9, 11—17, and 19-24, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 10, 18, and 25 have been
cancelled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). See Ex
parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential) (“so
long as the applicant has twice been denied a patent, an appeal may be
filed”).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies herself, Meghan Conroy, as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007714
Application 13/817,456
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “uniformly
acquiring and analyzing images or videos in a variety of settings.” Spec.
II2.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant language emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
providing a plurality of protocol, the plurality of protocol
including an individual protocol as a guide to acquire external
visual images, the individual protocol specifying a posture, a
position, a pose, a movement, a lighting, a time, a body part, a
distance, or a combination thereof;
acquiring the external visual images based on the
individual protocol;
storing the external visual images;
displaying the plurality ofprotocol as a selection tool for
displaying the external visual images',
detecting a selection of the individual protocol; and
displaying the external visual images acquired with the
individual protocol based on the individual protocol being
selected.
App. Br., Claims Appendix, 16.
2 We refer to the Specification filed Feb. 18, 2013 (“Spec.”); Non-Final
Office Action mailed Mar. 4, 2016 (“Non-Final”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 3,
2016 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 24, 2017 (“Ans.); and
the Reply Brief filed Apr. 24, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2017-007714
Application 13/817,456
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Weil et ah, US 2002/0044682 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
(hereinafter “Weil”)
Kalalian et al., US 2007/0073776 A1 Mar. 29, 2007
(hereinafter “Kalalian”)
Takasawa US 2010/0150311 Al June 17, 2010
Chhibber et al., US 8,260,010 B2 Sept. 4, 2012
(hereinafter “Chhibber”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 21, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Takasawa. Non-Final Act. 3—6.
Claims 3,6, 11, 14, 19, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takasawa and Chhibber. Non-
Final Act. 7—9.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takasawa and Weil. Non-Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takasawa, Chhibber, and Kalalian. Non-Final Act. 10-
11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
3
Appeal 2017-007714
Application 13/817,456
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the pending claims.
The Examiner finds Figure 4 of Takasawa shows “the thoracic frontal
image displayed by selecting the corresponding button of the particular body
part of interest,” and Figures 3 and 13 show displaying “an external image of
the body parts selected by the selection unit.” Ans. 15—16; see also Ans. 4—5
(citing Takasawa 1 60). The Examiner finds Takasawa’s displaying an
image corresponding to selecting a button teaches the claimed “displaying
the external visual images acquired with the individual protocol based on the
individual protocol being selected.” Ans. 5; see also Ans. 15—16.
Appellant argues Takasawa describes “process[ing] an original image
to create the diagnostic image which is then displayed on the operation
display unit” rather than displaying visual images acquired with the
individual protocol and based on the individual protocol selected. App. Br.
12. Appellant contends Takasawa does not describe “[displaying the
Takasawa Protocol as a selection tool for displaying external visual images
and displaying the external visual images acquired with the Takasawa
Protocol based on the Takasawa Protocol.” Reply Br. 11 (emphasis added).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Takasawa’s displaying an image that is being captured teaches “displaying
the external visual images acquired with the individual protocol based on the
individual protocol being used,” as recited in claim 1.
The cited sections of Takasawa describe displaying an image that is
being captured and checked based on selection after converting protocol IDs
to body part codes, rather than the claimed displaying images that have been
4
Appeal 2017-007714
Application 13/817,456
acquired based on selection. Takasawa describes “a body part menu 23 is a
menu which is for selecting a body part from a plurality of body part
candidates” and a “display region 31” with “the image capturing orders”
including “an undefined protocol ID.” Takasawa Fig. 3, 60, 59.
Takasawa further describes an “image capturing screen” with “an image
displaying region 33 showing] a region displaying the captured image, and
a body part information display region 35” and the status is “at a step of
checking the image.” Takasawa Fig. 4, | 61. In Takasawa, the image
capturing screen of Fig. 4 displays the “created image ... as a captured
image on the image display region.” Takasawa 1 92. This is done “[w]hen
all protocol IDs can be converted to body part codes,” and “the image
capturing order creating unit 88 at step SI07 transitions to an image
capturing screen” and then the image is captured for the patient. Takasawa
| 82—84, Fig. 10. In other words, Takasawa teaches displaying the image
capturing screen in order to check an image that is being captured after
protocol IDs have been converted to body part codes.
Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us, to reverse
the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, along with the § 102(e)
rejection of claims 9 and 17, which recite limitations commensurate in scope
to the disputed limitation discussed above, and dependent claims 5, 8, 13,
16, 21, and 24. See App. Br. 10, 13.
Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that the additional
references cure the foregoing deficiency regarding the rejection of the
independent claims 1, 9, and 17, we will not sustain the obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, and 23.
See App. Br. 13—14.
5
Appeal 2017-007714
Application 13/817,456
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1, 3—9, 11—17, and 19-24.
REVERSED
6