Ex Parte Moore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

11615224 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111615,224 12/22/2006
7590 11/25/2016
NEWSILIKE MEDIA GROUP, INC.
c/o James Moore
68 Laurel Street
Concord, MA 01742
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James F. Moore
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.
24229-0003007 1584
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HIEP VAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES F. MOORE
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224 1
Technology Center 3600
Before, ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 151-170. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 Appellants identify N ewsilike Media Group as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
1
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a method of managing tomography information.
Claim 151, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
151. A method comprising:
receiving computed tomography data from a medical device;
in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, securing the computed
tomography data with a conditional access, thereby transforming the
computed tomography data from an original state into a conditionally
accessible state; and
publishing the conditionally accessible computed tomography data in a
syndicated data feed.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 151-170 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mohr (US 2007 /0027710) in view of Burris et al.
(US 7,953,725 hereinafter Burris).
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2-10 of the
Answer.
2. The Specification states:
Para. 87.
The term "syndication" is intended to refer to
publication, republication, or other distribution of
content using any suitable technology, including
RSS and any extensions or modifications thereto,
as well as any other publish-subscribe or similar
technology that may be suitably adapted to the
methods and systems described herein.
"Syndicated" is intended to describe content in
syndication.
3. Mohr discloses that its disclosed image data is " ... data of
examinations by means of imaging methods such as x-ray, ultrasound,
magnetoresonance tomography, computer tomography, positron emission
tomography, endoscopic examinations, photography e.g. of the skin.
Para. 37.
4. Mohr discloses
Para. 90.
As a last method step, in the preferred embodiment
the so-called validation of the data pool (module
58) is provided which follows referencing. In
accordance with ISO 9000 validation means
making available an objective proof that the
requirements for an intended use or a specific
intended application have been fulfilled.
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
ANALYSIS
Concerning claim 151, the sole independent claim before us for
review, Appellant argues, "Burris does not show, teach or suggest
combining such a system with a medical device, such as the recited
computed tomography system." (Appeal Br. 7).
Appellant's argument is not well taken because the Appellant is
attacking the Burris reference individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58(CCPA1968). The Examiner
found that Mohr, and not Burris, discloses tomography related data finding:
Mohr discloses when a data source in the data pool
has been acquired with regard to its existence, the
medical and care-relevant information contents of
the data source are identified and also acquired in
the data pool. The data source includes x-ray,
ultrasound, magnetoresonance tomography,
computer tomography ('710; Fig. 7: X-ray
computer tomography; Paras 0037). Thus Mohr
discloses data source of computed tomography.
Mohr is silent on the publishing data in a
syndicated data feed.
(Answer 8). We find no error with the Examiner's rejection because our
review of Mohr reveals that paragraph 37 explicitly discloses computed
tomography data. (FF. 3).
Appellant argues that:
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224
Applicant respectfully maintains that the Office
Action also errs in its citation of Mohr as
disclosing "securing the computed tomography
data with a conditional access, thereby
transforming the computed tomography data from
an original state into a conditionally accessible
state" as cited in claim 151. The cited paragraphs
of Mohr disclose a system for correlating data
from different sources within a collection of
medical data. Mohr, not being concerned with
syndication or publication in any way, makes no
mention of securing such data with conditional
access, nor of securing a data feed generally.
Again, as neither Mohr nor Burris provides this
element, Applicant respectfully submits that claim
151 and its dependent claims, including claim 152,
should be allowed for this reason in addition to the
reasons noted above.
(Appeal Br. 8).
The Examiner, however, found,
The data contained in the data pool are referenced
such that elements of the data pool that are
correlated with regard to contents are linked and
displayable automatically as being correlated
('710; Abstract). Mohr further discloses the so-
called validation of data pool for an intended use
or a specific intended application that have been
fulfilled ('71 O; Para 0090). The Examiner notes
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
"predetermined criteria" and "validation of data
pool" as in the form of "conditional access"
(emphasis omitted).
(Answer 9-10).
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224
We agree with the Examiner. Our review of Mohr (FF. 4) reveals that
Mohr discloses a validation means for allowing access to the data pool,
which we agree with the Examiner meets the claim requirement of
"conditional access."
Dependent claim 152, recites in pertinent part, "subscribing to the
syndicated data feed and storing the syndicated data feed in a data pool."
Appx. cl. 152. Appellant argues concerning claim 152, "[t]he cited
paragraph [of Burris col. 4, 11. 51---63, see Final Act. 3)] makes no reference
to a data pool, nor does the remainder of the disclosure of Burris appear to
disclose a data pool." (Appeal Br. 8).
The Examiner however found that Burris discloses the claimed "data
pool" at column 4, lines 51-63. (Answer 3, 9).
We agree with the Examiner. Our review of Burris at the cited section
in column 4 reveals that Burris explicitly discloses a data pool in the form of
a storage device 112 in which is stored sources of "syndicatable feeds of
information." Notwithstanding, as we found supra, (FF. 4), Mohr
additionally discloses a data pool at module 58.
We are further not persuaded of error by Appellant's argument that
the Examiner engaged in improper hindsight because "there is no reason
suggested in Burris for transforming the information prior to consumption
into conditionally accessible units or storing the units in a common data pool
for access to subscribers who satisfy the conditions for accessing it."
(Appeal Br. 9). To the extent Appellant seeks an explicit suggestion or
motivation in the Burris reference itself, this is no longer the law in view of
the Supreme Court's holding in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
Appeal2014-004757
Application 11/615,224
1727, 17 41 (2007). Because the Examiner has provided some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning for why a person with ordinary
skill in the art would modify Mohr to include the medical data of Burris
(Answer 3), Appellant's argument is not persuasive as to error in the
rejection.
We also affirm the rejections of dependent claims 153-170 because
Appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 151-170
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 151-170 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED.