Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12775681 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121775,681 05/07/2010 Kevin M. Crucs
119392 7590 06/30/2016
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP/APTERYX/CRUCS
1 Gojo Plaza
Suite 300
Akron, OH 44311
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
116385.00150 1632
EXAMINER
BURGESS, JOSEPH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
patents@hahnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS
Appeal2014-004273
Application 12/775,681
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1--43. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method to automatically tailor image parameter
settings in a dental X-ray imaging system having a user
interface and an image processing subsystem, said method
compnsmg:
Appeal2014-004273
Application 12/775,681
selecting at least one dentition characteristic
corresponding to a dentition of a patient to be imaged via said
user interface of said dental X-ray imaging system;
selecting at least one non-dentition characteristic
corresponding to said patient to be imaged via said user
interface of said dental X-ray imaging system;
automatically determining at least one X-ray exposure
setting in response to said at least one dentition characteristic
and said at least one non-dentition characteristic via said image
processing subsystem of said X-ray imaging system; and
automatically generating a set of image parameter
settings capable of being applied to acquired X-ray image data,
being representative of said dentition of said patient, in
response to said at least one dentition characteristic, said at least
one non-dentition characteristic, and said at least one X-ray
exposure setting via said image processing subsystem of said
X-ray imaging system.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1--43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dalpiaz
(US 7,580,502 B2, iss. Aug. 25, 2009) and Rinaldi (US 2002/0085673 Al,
pub. July 4, 2002).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does
not disclose automatically generating a set of image parameter settings
capable of being applied to acquired X-ray image data?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the disclosure at column 4, lines 21-28 of
Dalpiaz of using an existing X-ray image in the Dalpiaz process is a
2
Appeal2014-004273
Application 12/775,681
disclosure of selecting at least one dentition characteristic corresponding to a
dentition of a patient (Final Act. 3). The Examiner also finds that Dalpiaz
discloses using this existing X-ray image to generate a set of image
parameter settings capable of being applied to X-ray image data (col. 2, lines
20-35).
The Appellant argues that Dalpiaz uses the existing X-ray image to
determine the position of the X-ray machine not to generate a set of image
parameters as required by claim 1.
We agree with the Appellant. We find that Dalpiaz is directed to a
system for positioning an X-ray apparatus (col. 1, 11. 61---63). Dalpiaz
discloses that an existing X-ray image, which the Examiner reads on the
dentition characteristic, is used to position the moveable parts of the X-ray
apparatus not to generate a set of image parameter settings capable of being
applied to the acquired X-ray image data (col. 4, 11. 21-31). Dalpiaz also
discloses at lines 31-35 of column 4, that the intensity of the radiation from
both the radiation source and the sensor can be determined from current and
voltage parameters. This portion of Dalpiaz relates to determining the
intensity of radiation coming from both the source and the sensor not
generating a set of image parameter settings capable of being applied to the
acquired X-ray image data.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining
rejections because each of the remaining claims requires the subject matter
we have found missing in Dalpiaz.
3
Appeal2014-004273
Application 12/775,681
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4