Ex Parte Gkanatsios et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201512344121 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/344,121 12/24/2008 Nikolaos A. Gkanatsios 19.080011 CON 5630 79697 7590 02/17/2015 COOPER & DUNHAM LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza 20th Floor New York, NY 10112 EXAMINER BAYAT, ALI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2015 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 NIKOLAOS A. GKANATSIOS, LOREN NIKLASON, IAN SHAW, CHRISTOPHER RUTH, ANDREW P. SMITH, and JAY A. STEIN ____________ Appeal 2012-007664 Application 12/344,121 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 102–104, 106–109, and 111. Claims 1–101 have been canceled. App. Br. 3. Claims 105 and 110 have been indicated to contain allowable subject matter. Ans. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-007664 Application 12/344,121 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to x-ray mammography and tomosynthesis (Spec. 1, l. 23). Independent claim 102, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 102. A method of displaying x-ray image data comprising: acquiring two-dimensional x-ray projection images of a three-dimensional object obtained by using a tomosynthesis x- ray data acquisition unit that acquires each of the two- dimensional images by projecting an x-ray beam through the object at respective different angles of the beam relative to the object; reconstructing at least a portion of the acquired two- dimensional projection images into three-dimensional image data representing the three-dimensional object; concurrently displaying on a display device (a) at least one of said two-dimensional x-ray images and (b) at least a portion of the three-dimensional image data. REJECTION and REFERENCES The Examiner rejected claims 102–104, 106–109, and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eberhard (US 6,751,285 B2, issued June 15, 2004) and Argiro (US 5,986,662, issued Nov. 16, 1999). Ans. 4–6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. Appeal 2012-007664 Application 12/344,121 3 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the claimed “two- dimensional images” is not the same as Argiro’s two-dimensional views as the claimed two-dimensional images are not reconstructed (Reply Br. 5). We agree with the Examiner’s explanation (Ans. 7–10), which finds Argiro’s two dimensional preview images (see Argiro, col. 7, ll. 53–59) meet the function of the disputed claim element because claim 102 does not preclude such a reading. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We further note the words “not reconstructed” are not in the claims and, thus, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. As to Appellants’ other contentions on pages 6 through 17 of the Appeal Brief, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response on pages 7 through 11 of the Answer and we concur with the Examiner’s findings. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 102–104, 106–109, and 111. Appeal 2012-007664 Application 12/344,121 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 102–104, 106–109, and 111 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)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation