Ex Parte Kelly

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 8, 2002

08696627 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 8, 2002)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GEOFFREY O. KELLY
____________
Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before DIXON, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12, which are all the claims remaining in the
application.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a programmable medical imaging system.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for executing commands in a client-server based medical
imaging system, the medical imaging system including at least one client unit
and at least one server unit, the client unit having a graphical user interface and
an interpreter for executing a plurality of scripts, each script including script
commands, said method comprising the steps of:
operating the interpreter to execute the scripts; and
upon executing a script command requiring a server transaction,
transmitting the server request from the client unit to the server unit;
suspending the script containing the server request until a reply is
received to the server request; and
maintaining the graphical user interface interactive while awaiting the
reply.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hilton et al. (Hilton) 5,452,416 Sep. 19, 1995
(filed Dec. 30, 1992)
Judson 5,572,643 Nov. 5, 1996
(filed Oct. 19, 1995)
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hilton and Judson.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 11) and the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 18) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No.
Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
-3-
17) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant asserts that Judson cannot teach “maintaining the graphical user
interface interactive while awaiting the reply,” as set forth in claim 1, because “a user
passively views the messages displayed by the script and can do nothing while the
request is pending.” (Brief at 14.) The examiner, however, appears to disregard the
normal meaning of “interactive.” Judson is deemed by the examiner to disclose “the
inventive concept of displaying useful information to the viewer during the link process.”
(Answer at 5.)
However, neither appellant nor the examiner appears to address Judson’s
teaching that, during download of a hypertext document, the browser may display one
or more messages that may include “fill-in forms.” See col. 1, ll. 64-67; col. 2, ll. 42-49.
The reference, in fact, uses the word “interactive” in describing use of the “fill-in” forms.
Col. 7, ll. 18-25.
In any event, appellant also argues that Judson neither shows nor suggests
suspension of a script during a server request. (Brief at 12.) The examiner responds
(Answer at 5), “what is actually recited in independent claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 are
‘maintaining the interactive GUI while the interpreter the [sic] is suspended allows the
operator to alter the command performed’.”
Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
-4-
However, instant claim 1 sets forth, inter alia, the step of “suspending the script
containing the server request until a reply is received to the server request.” We agree
with appellant (e.g., Brief at 17) that the rejection is unclear with respect to pointing out
the particular elements described by Judson that are deemed to teach the claim
limitations attributed to the reference. We consider it most likely that Judson’s browser,
or the process running within the browser (described at col. 5, l. 50 - col. 6, l. 11), is
proposed to correspond to the claimed “interpreter.” The “script” as claimed would thus
correspond to the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) code, as illustrated in Figure 7
of the reference.
We find no satisfactory response from the examiner to appellant’s position set
forth in the Brief, as developed therein and supported by reference to Judson, that the
reference fails to disclose or suggest suspending the script containing the server
request until a reply is received to the server request. Nor do we find any description of
such a process in Judson, notwithstanding the rejection relying upon the reference as
teaching the feature. In our reading of Judson’s disclosure, a script containing the
server request is not suspended until a reply is received to the server request. On the
contrary, execution of the relevant script is effectively complete at the time of a server
request, and a new script (i.e., HTML code loaded from the requested web link) is
thereafter accessed. Judson at col. 5, l. 50 - col. 6, l. 11 and Fig. 3.
Each of the remaining independent claims on appeal (4, 7, and 10) sets forth
combinations that include substantially similar limitations to those in claim 1 that we find
Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
-5-
the rejection deficient in addressing. Since not all limitations of the claims have been
shown as disclosed or suggested by the prior art, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton and
Judson.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-1529
Application No. 08/696,627
-6-
JOHN S. BEULICK
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE SCHLAFLY & DAVIS
ONE METROPOLITAN SQUARE
SUITE 2600
ST LOUIS , MO 63102-2740