Ex Parte Kanada

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2004

09672826 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHOJI KANADA
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
____________
HEARD: February 5, 2004
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 62 and 68 through 78. Claims 63
through 67 are withdrawn from consideration.
Appellant's invention relates to a medical image server and
searching method. The server includes pre-fetching judging means
for determining whether or not a stored past image is necessary
before the terminal sends an order for output of the image. The
server further includes judging means for determining whether or
not image processing is necessary for a searched image. The
server also includes control means for transmitting to the image
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
2
display terminal a) a location of the image in the database, when
image processing has been found to be unnecessary or b) that the
image is located in the storing means while obtaining the image
from the database for image processing, when image processing has
been found to be necessary. In addition, each image display
terminal has a setting defining whether only the storing means or
the storing means as well as the database are to be searched.
The searching method includes converting search information
received from the search requesting apparatus to a character type
which is used by the database and is different from a character
type used by the search requesting apparatus. Claims 1, 68, 69,
and 73 are illustrative of the claimed invention, and they read
as follows:
1. A medical image server comprising image acquisition
means for fetching an image from an image archiving apparatus
storing medical images, storing means for storing the image
having been fetched, and delivering means for outputting the
image stored in the storing means to a terminal, the medical
image server further comprising:
pre-fetching judging means for carrying out judgment as to
whether acquisition of a past image of a patient which is stored
in the image archiving apparatus is necessary or unnecessary
before the terminal actually sends an order for output of the
image, based on information regarding a medical examination order
and/or photographing of the patient; and
pre-fetching image selecting means for selecting an image of
the patient from past images stored in the image archiving
apparatus based on the information regarding the medical
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
3
examination order and/or photographing in the case where the pre-
fetching judging means has judged the acquisition to be
necessary, and for causing the image acquisition means to fetch
the selected image.
68. A medical image searching method used in a medical
image search apparatus connected to a search requesting apparatus
and to a database storing medical images with text information,
for searching the database for a desired image according to
search information from the search requesting apparatus and for
sending a search result including text information to the search
requesting apparatus, the medical image searching method
comprising the steps of:
searching for the desired image after converting search
information received from the search requesting apparatus to
search information in a character type used by the database and
different from a character type used by the search requesting
apparatus; and
sending the search result to the search requesting apparatus
after the search result has been converted into the character
type used by the search requesting apparatus.
69. An image search server connected to an image display
terminal and to a database storing images, for carrying out a
search of the database in response to a request of the image
display terminal and for outputting a search result to the
terminal, the image search server comprising:
image processing means for carrying out predetermined image
processing on the image obtained by the search;
storing means for storing the image having been subjected to
the image processing by the image processing means;
judging means for judging whether or not image processing is
necessary for the image having been searched for; and
control means for transmitting to the image display terminal
a search result including information indicating a location of
the image in the database in the case where the judging means has
judged image processing to be unnecessary or for transmitting a
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
4
search result including information indicating that the image is
located in the storing means while obtaining the image from the
database for causing the image to be subjected to the image
processing by the image processing means in the case where the
judging means has judged the image processing to be necessary.
73. An image search server connected to a database storing
images and to a plurality of image display terminals, for
searching the database in response to a search request of any of
the image display terminals and for outputting a search result to
the image display terminal, the image search server comprising:
storing means for storing an image obtained from the
database; and
control means having, for each of the image display
terminals, setting defining whether only the storing means or the
storing means as well as the database, are searched, and for
determining where to search according to the setting for each
terminal.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Taguchi et al. (Taguchi) 5,807,256 Sep. 15, 1998
Claims 1 through 62 and 68 through 78 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Taguchi.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed March 25, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 14,
filed January 31, 2003) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17, filed
May 27, 2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
5
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 62
and 68 through 78.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, if any limitation is lacking
from the reference, the claim cannot be anticipated.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a pre-
fetching judging means for judging before the terminal orders
output of an image whether the stored image is necessary. The
examiner relies (Final Rejection, page 2) on portions of columns
6, 33, 34, 36, and 37 for such pre-fetching judging means (with
no explanation as to how the various portions of Taguchi satisfy
the claim language). Appellant argues (Brief, page 8) that no
pre-fetching exists in Taguchi and explains (Brief, pages 8-10)
how each cited portion supports that the relevant medical image
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
6
must have been retrieved previously by order of an operator. The
examiner responds (Answer, page 3) that in column 25, lines 16-
36, "Taguchi discloses that images are input into a system (PACS)
and stored in a database. The image is then interpreted and
judged. The image in [sic] interpreted before an order and
sending it to the doctor."
We agree with appellant's interpretation of the cited
portions of Taguchi. As pointed out by appellant, the actions in
Taguchi occur after the image has been retrieved. Further,
regarding the examiner's statements in the answer, Taguchi's
image has already been retrieved to perform the analysis and is
analyzed to detect abnormalities, not judged as to whether it
needs to be retrieved, as claimed. As Taguchi fails to disclose
the claimed pre-fetching judging means, Taguchi does not
anticipate claim 1. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or its dependents, claims 2 through 59, 77,
and 78. In addition, as claim 60 includes the same limitation
found lacking from Taguchi for claim 1, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 60 or its dependents, claims 61 and 62.
Independent claim 68 recites, in pertinent part, a dual-type
character search. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 12) points
to Figures 61 and 62A, columns 13, 14, 34, 37, 38, and part of
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
7
columns 42 and 104 (again with no explanation as to how any of
the noted sections correspond to the claim limitation).
Appellant (Brief, pages 13-14) again sets forth why each portion
cited by the examiner fails to satisfy the claim limitation. The
examiner responds (Answer, page 4) that in Taguchi "the search
for an image is done using a character types [sic] and the image
is of a binary type." However, the format (i.e., binary) of the
stored image is different from the character type of the search
information. We agree with appellant's analysis of the portions
cited by the examiner, and we find nothing in the reference that
indicates that the search requesting apparatus uses a different
character type than the database. Since Taguchi fails to
disclose each and every element of claim 68, we cannot sustain
the anticipation rejection of claim 68.
Claim 69 recites, in pertinent part, judging means for
determining whether or not image processing is necessary for the
image and control means for transmitting a) the image from the
database or b) the location of the image in the database,
depending on whether or not image processing is judged to be
necessary. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 13) points to
Figures 125 and 127 and portions of columns 1, 53, 78, and 102
(without any explanation as to how those sections relate to the
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
8
claim language). Appellant (Brief, pages 15-16) again evaluates
each portion and explains why it fails to satisfy the claim
language. The examiner responds (Answer, page 5), "Taguchi
discloses such wherein detection of abnormalities are detected,
image processing judging is deemed to be done."
The examiner appears to have missed the point of the claim.
As explained by appellant (Brief, page 16), Taguchi does not
describe any different treatment for data transmissions according
to whether image processing is or is not necessary. Taguchi does
not provide location information when no processing is desired,
as required by claim 69. Thus, Taguchi fails to anticipate claim
69, and we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection thereof.
Claims 73 through 76 each recite either a means or a step
for determining according to a pre-setting whether only the
storing means or the storing means as well as the database are
searched. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 15) directs our
attention to portions of columns 13 and 18 (again without any
explanation as to the relevance.) Appellant asserts (Brief, page
18) that neither column 13 nor column 18 discusses searching
certain locations. The examiner (Answer, page 5) responds, "[I]f
the user is only searching for non-image data, then he will not
be searching the image database and if he is searching for both
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
9
then he will be searching both databases." The examiner
continues, "The settings of the terminal are deemed to be the
criteria the user of the terminal is using to conduct his/her
search."
We agree with appellant that neither column 13 nor column 18
discloses searching certain locations. Further, we also agree
with appellant (Reply Brief, page 10) that nowhere does Taguchi
disclose that a user searching for only non-image data will not
search the image database. Therefore, we will not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 73 through 76.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 62
and 68 through 78 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
AG/RWK
Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
11
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-3202