Ex Parte Gotnam

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

13881162 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/881,162 04/24/2013 Shlomo Gotnam
24737 7590 08/31/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2010P01053WOUS 1027
EXAMINER
MIRZA, ADNAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHLOMO GOTMAN
Appeal2018-000475
Application 13/881, 162
Technology Center 2400
Before: JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-23, all the pending claims. Claims
App.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellant states that Koninklijke Philips N.V. is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 11, 2015, "App. Br."), the Reply
Appeal2018-000475
Application 13/881,162
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and system for exposing imaging
system events. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 14, and 23 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method for exposing imaging system events in
connection with an event driven imaging system, comprising:
detecting an imaging system event occurred, wherein the
imaging system event corresponds to an imaging examination
being performed;
generating a signal indicative of the detected imaging
system event; and
transmitting the signal over a computer network for
reception by at least one non-controlling device communicating
over the network.
Kreger, et al.,
Gotman, et al.,
References and Rejections
US 2004/0139190 Al
US 2007/0109294 Al
July 15, 2004
May 17, 2007
Claims 1-23 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kreger and Gotman. Final Act. 2-8.
Brief (filed August 26, 2016, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
July 5, 2016, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed August 18, 2015, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed April 24, 2013, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2018-000475
Application 13/881,162
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-18, and 20 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant's
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-12.
CLAIMS 1-23: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KREGER AND GOTMAN.
Claims 1-13
With respect to independent Claims 1, 14, and 23, the Examiner finds
Kreger teaches the detection of an imaging system event corresponding to an
occurrence of an imaging examination. Final Act 2-3 ( citing Kreger, ,r 17). 3
The Examiner cites Gotman for transmitting a signal over a computer
network. Id. at 3.
Appellant contends the cited references fail to teach detecting an
imaging system event. Appellant argues Kreger is directed to a chassis,
which downloads a webserver to shorten test and debug cycles allowing
engineers to more quickly create web pages for their most frequently used
debug and testing activities. App. Br. 6 ( citing Kreger, ,r,r 7-9). Appellant
analyses Kreger as teaching an HTTP-based system, including a local
private network, for diagnosis and control of an embedded multiprocessor
system. Id. ( citing Kreger, ,r 17). Appellant argues Gotman does not cure
Kreger. Id. The Examiner does not apply Gotman to teach the disputed
limitation. See Ans. 4.
The Examiner finds the microprocessor system, disclosed by Kreger,
is embedded within an imaging control system and, although not explicitly
3 Kreger is not specifically mentioned, but we infer Kreger is the intended
reference because the subsequent paragraph recites, inter alia, "[h ]owever
Kreger did not disclose."
3
Appeal2018-000475
Application 13/881,162
so stated, the microprocessor is related to the claimed "imaging system
events." See Ans. 4. In making this finding, the Examiner interprets the
"detecting imaging system" as part of the imaging contro 1 system. Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner's finding does not consider the
entire limitation because "detecting imaging system" is not what is claimed,
but rather, "detecting an imaging system event occurred." Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues "[ d]etecting an imaging system" and "detecting events of
an imaging system" would not be reasonably interpreted to be the same by a
person of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Kreger discloses:
Non-graphical interfaces (i.e. text or ASCII based) are typically
implemented by embedded programmers for use by other
programmers and engineers. These interfaces allow
functionality tests of lower level drivers and diagnostics and
also allow viewing and modification of locations in the
microprocessor memory.
Kreger, ,r 3.
To develop these tools into something easily usable to the non-
programmer involves an applications programmer creating an
associated graphical user interface (GUI). So the production of
a diagnostic or tool, useful for the end user, has historically
been a two-step process between the embedded programmer
and the applications programmer (who writes the GUI). This is
both expensive and time consuming.
Kreger, ,r 4.
One advantage of the present invention is easy prototyping of
the user interface with HyperText Markup Language (HTML)
forms (text based monitor interfaces are eliminated). This
shortens the test and debug cycles. Engineers can resultantly
create web pages for their most frequently used debug and
testing activities at a faster rate.
4
Appeal2018-000475
Application 13/881,162
Kreger, ,r 9 (cited by Appellant). Kreger discloses a system to test and
debug resident software for use in an imaging system. There is no
disclosure, in the cited portions of Kreger, that teach an "imaging system
event [which] corresponds to an imaging examination being performed," as
claimed. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 1-13.
Claims 14-22
Independent Claim 14 recites, inter alia, "detecting at least one of
utilizing, modifying, an adding, or a deleting an imaging system protocol
from the imaging system" and "generating a signal indicative of the protocol
by a console."
Appellant contends Kreger relates to the development cycle and
manufacturing environment allowing engineers to shorten test and debug
cycles. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues Kreger fails to teach the disputed
limitation. Id.
With respect to independent Claim 14, the Examiner's findings are
substantially the same as those for Claim 1. Similarly as for Claim 1, we
find Kreger's teachings relate to testing and debugging of software and not
to imaging events of an examination. In view of the foregoing, we decline
to sustain the rejection of Claims 14--22.
Claim 23
Appellant contends the cited art fails to teach "a signal indicative of at
least one of an imaging workflow event or an imaging protocol of the
imaging system," as recited in Claim 23. App. Br. 11-12.
With respect to independent Claim 23, the Examiner's findings are
substantially the same as those for Claim 1. Similarly as for Claim 1, we
5
Appeal2018-000475
Application 13/881,162
find Kreger's teachings relate to testing and debugging of software and not
to imaging events of an examination. In view of the foregoing, we decline
to sustain the rejection of Claim 23.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6