Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2012

11125935 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS
_____________

Appeal 2010-004650
Application 11/125,935
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEVIN F. TURNER and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-27 which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2010-004650
Application 11/125,935

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to accessing a DICOM server to
retrieve or store digital medical images and reducing the security
burden of the DICOM server. See Spec. [0001].
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:

1. A system to submit image requests to a DICOM server, said
system comprising a first data manager operationally interfacing
between a first plurality of computer-based platforms and said
DICOM server and administering a first security policy between said
first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server,
wherein each of said first plurality of computer-based platforms is
capable of generating an image request, and wherein said DICOM
server is capable of receiving and responding to said image request.

REFERENCES
Kondo US 2005/0251020 A1 Nov. 10, 2005
(filed May 2, 2005)
Blakley US 7,039,714 B1 May. 2, 2006
(filed Jan. 19, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kondo and Blakley. Ans. 3-5.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kondo and Blakley collectively
teach “a first data manager operationally interfacing between a first plurality
of computer-based platforms and said DICOM server and administering a
Appeal 2010-004650
Application 11/125,935

3
first security policy between said first plurality of computer-based platforms
and said DICOM server ” as independent claim 1 recites?

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents arguments with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-27
are not argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 4.
Appellant argues that neither Kondo nor Blakley discloses the above
limitation in claim 1. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues that
“Kondo generally describes storing and retrieving image files to/from a
DlCOM server, but Kondo does not describe a data manager interfacing
between a plurality of computer-based platforms and a DICOM server and
administering a security policy therebetween.” Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner relies on the
combination of Kondo and Blakley to meet this limitation. Ans. 10. Kondo
discloses “a[n] image file receiving unit 21 for receiving the DICOM files,
generated at the modality 9 via the LAN 15, an image file storage unit 22 for
storing therein the DICOM files received by the image file receiving unit
21” (Kondo [0049]) and that “or a plurality of client viewers may be
provided” (Kondo [0040]). See Ans. 3 and 6. Blakley discloses that an SSO
server manages usernames and passwords and carries out an authentication
scheme to authenticate users in order to give the users access to a resource.
Blakley, col. 5, ll. 25-35. Based on these portions of Kondo and Blakley, we
conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Kondo and Blakley suggests a data manager interfacing with
a DICOM server and a plurality of computers and administering a security
policy. Ans. 5-6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
Appeal 2010-004650
Application 11/125,935

4
combination of Kondo and Blakley suggests “a first data manager
operationally interfacing between a first plurality of computer-based
platforms and said DICOM server and administering a first security policy
between said first plurality of computer-based platforms and said DICOM
server.”
Appellant further argues that the “claimed subject matter of the
present application, when given its broadest interpretation, does not
implement an SSO service, does not use an intermediate server to
impersonate a user, and does not perform identity mapping of user platforms
” , and “is not [, as Blakley teaches,] attempting to give a user the
appearance of having a single user account having a single password when,
within an enterprise, the user may have multiple accounts, perhaps with
multiple passwords.” See App. Br. 7.. We are not persuaded by this
argument.
This argument is not commensurate with the claim scope. Claim 1
does not specifically include or exclude impersonating a user, identity
mapping, or giving the user the appearance of a single user account and
password. Claim 1 simply recites “administering a first security policy.”
The Examiner notes that “[t]he claims are sufficiently broad that an SSO
server meets the limitation of ‘first data manager’ [administering a security
policy] in claims 1 and 17.” Ans. 6. As noted above, Blakley discloses an
SSO server that manages a security policy. Blakley, col. 5, ll. 25-35. We
conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that the SSO
server of Blakley is encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation
of a “first data manager . . . administering a first security policy” in the
context of the invention and as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 6.
Appeal 2010-004650
Application 11/125,935

5
For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Kondo and Blakely.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-27 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

tj