Ex Parte LukanderDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 13, 201612837661 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/837,661 07/16/2010 466 7590 YOUNG & THOMPSON 209 Madison Street Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 07115/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kristian LUKANDER 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. 3502-1198 4649 EXAMINER LIEW, ALEX KOK SOON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/15/2016 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): DocketingDept@young-thompson.com yandtpair@firs ttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRISTIAN LUKANDER Appeal2014-006393 Application 12/837,661 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EV ANS, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'I~ 1\1,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i • ., Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s rejection of claims 1-11, 13-21, 23, and 24, which are all the claims pending in this application. An oral hearing was held June 21, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Tyoterveyslaitos. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-006393 Application 12/837,661 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's present application relates to projecting an image element on a representation of image data. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and as follows: 1. A method for determining an image based at least in part on first data having a first representation, the method comprising: determining a projection of an imaging element on the first representation in response to the imaging element being arranged to at least partly overlap with the first representation, the imaging element comprising a display for displaying the image, determining a first subset of data as the subset of the first data corresponding to the projection of the imaging element on the first representation, and determining the image based at least in part on the first subset of data corresponding to the projection of the imaging element on the first representation, displaying the determined image on said display of the imaging element. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1--4, 6-11, 13-15, 17-21, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ryals (US 5,431,161; July 11, 1995) and Boag (US 6,263,096 Bl; July 17, 2001). Final Act. 3-7. Claims 5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ryals, Boag, and Official Notice. Final Act. 7-8. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Ryals teaches or suggests "determining a projection of an imaging element on the first representation in response to the imaging element being arranged to at least partly overlap with the first 2 Appeal2014-006393 Application 12/837,661 representation, the imaging element comprising a display for displaying the image." Ans. 2--4, Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds Figure 7 of Ryals teaches determining a number of projections and Figure 6 of Ryals teaches displaying projections of an imaging element. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Ryals' projections are merely frames of data. App. Br. 4. Appellant argues these projections are, therefore, raw data instead of projections of an imaging element comprising a display on a representation of data. Id. Appellant argues the claimed "projections" are different because the claims require the projection of an imaging element, which itself comprises a display to display an image, to physically overlap portions of a data representation. Id. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Ryals teaches determining projections because the Examiner has failed to establish that Ryals teaches both projections of an image element and a data representation onto which the projection overlaps. As argued by Appellant, the "projections" of Ryals are frames of data that represent the raw data obtained from the gSPECT acquisition device. See App. Br. 4 (citing Ryals Fig. 4A). The Examiner has failed to establish that these frames of data are projections that comprise an image element on a display that at least partially overlaps a portion of a representation of data, as claimed. Accordingly, on this record we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.2 2 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue, which is dispositive of the rejection of claim 1 over Ryals and Boag, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellant's arguments. 3 Appeal2014-006393 Application 12/837,661 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11, 13-21, 23, and 24. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation