Ex Parte MuralidharanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 201310723864 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/723,864 11/26/2003 Girsih K. Muralidharan 138256SV/YOD GEMS:0249 9698 7590 11/27/2013 Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER NEURAUTER, GEORGE C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2615 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2013 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 GIRSIH K. MURALIDHARAN ____________ Appeal 2011-006462 Application 10/723,864 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006462 Application 10/723,864 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-18, 20-23, 31-35, and 40-49. Claims 19, 24-30, and 36-39 were canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems and methods for dynamically adapting remote console image updates based on network performance. (Spec. 1:6-9, 3:9-30; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A remote viewing system, comprising: a serving station coupled to a medical diagnostic imaging system for controlling the imaging system and configured to receive image data, the serving station comprising: a scanner module configured to modify a scanning rate of the image data; and an encoder module configured to modify an encoding format of the image data; a served station from which a remote operator may interact with the serving station, the served station being configured to receive modified image data from the serving station via a network; and a plurality of network sensors in communication with the serving station and configured to provide network performance data to the serving station, wherein the serving station Appeal 2011-006462 Application 10/723,864 3 dynamically modifies at least one of the scanning rate and the encoding format based on the network performance data. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 20-23, 31-35, 40, 42, and 44-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0029285 A1, published Mar. 7, 2002 (“Collins”). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 14, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins and U.S. Patent No. 5,119,319, issued Jun. 2, 1992 (“Tanenbaum”). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 18, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0138754 A1, published Jul. 15, 2004 (filed Oct. 7, 2003) (“Lang”). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that Collins discloses “a serving station coupled to a medical diagnostic imaging system for controlling the imaging system and configured to receive image data” including “a scanner module configured to modify a scanning rate of the image data” within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 15, 31, 40, and 42? Appeal 2011-006462 Application 10/723,864 4 ANALYSIS We agree with Appellant that the portions of Collins identified by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the disputed features of claim 1. (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-4.) Specifically, we agree with Appellant that Collins (¶¶ [0014], [0072]), cited by the Examiner as disclosing “a system and method of adapting graphical data . . . and processing activity to changing network conditions wherein a server agent processes graphical data addressed to the client agent at a first rate” (Ans. 21; see Ans. 3-4, 21-22), fails to describe the explicitly recited medical diagnostic imaging system, much less the serving station coupled to the medical diagnostic imaging system including a scanner module to modify a scanning rate of the image data from the medical diagnostic imaging system. (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-4.) Instead, Collins merely describes a server, coupled to a client, adapting a graphical data processing rate in response to network conditions. (Collins, ¶¶ [0014], [0072].) Further, we cannot agree with the Examiner that the modifying scrolling of a frame buffer (to compensate for overscrolling) by the server in Collins equates to the recited scanner module configured to modify a scanning rate of the image data. (Ans. 22; Collins ¶ [0072].) Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that Collins fails to disclose the recited features of Appellant’s claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellant’s independent claims 15, 31, 40, and 42 include limitations of commensurate scope. Appellant’s dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20-23, 32-35, and 44-49 depend on and stand with claims 1, 15, 31, and 42, respectively. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 20-23, 31-35, 40, 42, and 44-49. Appeal 2011-006462 Application 10/723,864 5 Independent claim 41 and dependent claims 4, 11, 14, 18, and 43 also include limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1 (supra). The Examiner does not explain how, nor do we find that, either Tanenbaum or Lang cure the deficiencies of Collins discussed with respect to claim 1 (supra). Thus, for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra), we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claim 41 and dependent claims 4, 11, 14, 18, and 43. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 20-23, 31-35, 40, 42, and 44-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 11, 14, 18, 41, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18, 20-23, 31-35, and 40-49. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation