Ex Parte Lukander

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12837661 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

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