Ex Parte Ozawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2012

09726558 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RYO OZAWA
____________________

Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 16. Claims 5, 11, and 13-15 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s inventions “relates to an electronic endoscope system.”
(Spec., page 1, line 5).

Exemplary Claim
1. An electronic endoscope system including a scope having
a solid state image sensor provided at a distal end thereof to
generate image-pixel signals, an image-signal processing unit
that produces a video signal based on the image-pixel signals,
and a monitor for reproducing and displaying an endoscope-
image in accordance with the video signal output from said
image-signal processing unit, said system comprising:
a scene-changing system that changes a scene displayed
on said monitor between an endoscope-image-display scene and
a patient-data-list-display scene comprising character code data;
a storage system that stores patient data, said patient data
comprising a patient data list which is displayed on said
monitor when the scene on said monitor is changed from said
endoscope-image-display scene to said patient-data-list-display
scene by said scene-changing system;
a selection system that selects individual patient data
from said patient data list displayed on said monitor;
a display-control system that displays said selected
individual patient data together with the endoscope-image on
said monitor when the scene on said monitor is changed from
said patient-data-list-display scene to said endoscope-image-
display scene by said scene-changing system; and
Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558

3
a timing controller that provides clock pulses to the
image-signal processing unit, the timing controller outputting a
first series of clock pulses having a first frequency when the
endoscope-image-display scene is displayed on said monitor,
and outputting a second series of clock pulses having a second
frequency when the patient-data-list-display scene is displayed
on said monitor, the second frequency being higher than the
first frequency in order to enable the image-signal processing
unit to process a larger number of image-pixel signals when the
patient-data-list-display scene is displayed on said monitor,
wherein said selection system includes:
an indicator system that visually indicates patient data to
be selected from said patient data list;
a manual operation system that controls the indication of
the patient data to be selected from said patient data list; and
a manual settlement system that manually settles the indication
of the patient data to be selected from said patient data list.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Tsuji US 5,258,834 Nov. 2, 1993
Kanno US 5,583,566 Dec. 10, 1996
Nishikori US 5,627,584 May 6, 1997

Rejections on Appeal1
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kanno in view of Nishikori and Tsuji. (Ans. 3-
6).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, and
12. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558

4
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that:
1. the applied prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a scene-
changing system that changes a scene displayed on said monitor between an
endoscope-image-display scene and a patient-data-list-display scene,” as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12-14); and
2. the applied prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a timing
controller that provides clock pulses to the image-signal processing unit, the
timing controller outputting a first series of clock pulses having a first
frequency when the endoscope-image-display scene is displayed on said
monitor, and outputting a second series of clock pulses having a second
frequency when the patient-data-list-display scene is displayed on said
monitor, the second frequency being higher than the first frequency in order
to enable the image-signal processing unit to process a higher number of
image-pixel signals when the patient-data-list-display scene is displayed on
said monitor,” as recited in claim 1. (App Br. 14-16).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claims 1, 7, and 16 as
being obvious by finding that the combination of Kanno, Nishikori, and
Tsuji teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations?

Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
With respect to Appellant’s first contention, even accepting
Appellant’s argument that Nishikori does not disclose a single monitor
which displays both an endoscope-image-display and a patient-data-display
scene (Reply Br. 4), the combination of Kanno and Nishikori teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Specifically, Kanno illustrates a scene
changing system displayed on a monitor, wherein either the “Endoscope
Inspection” (i.e., the recited “endoscope-image-display scene”) or the
“Patient Data Management” (i.e., the recited “patient-data-list-display
scene”) is displayed. (Ans. 7 (citing Kanno Figs. 2, 8A-8C, 30A-30C, and
32)). The Examiner also relies on the illustrations of a monitor displaying
an endoscope inspection screen in Kanno (Figs. 2 and 8A-8C) and of a
monitor displaying patient data in Nishikori (Figs. 15D and 15F). That
Nishikori does not illustrate the same monitor with both displays is of no
matter, especially given that Kanno teaches or suggests the possibility of
displaying both options on the same monitor. (See Kanno Fig. 32).
With respect to Appellant’s second contention, we agree with the
Examiner that Tsuji teaches or suggests using a second series of clock pulses
having a second frequency higher than the first frequency in order to enable
Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558

6
the image signal processing unit to process a higher number of image pixel
signals when the output image includes an “index information display
portion 56.” (See Tsuji 8:5-35; Figs. 6). Even assuming Tsuji’s “index
information display portion 56” does not correlate to the recited “patient-
data-list-display scene,” Tsuji’s teaching can be applied in combination with
Kanno to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation, i.e., using a second
higher frequency to process a higher number of image pixel signals when
“patient-data-list-display scene” is displayed. (See Ans. 8). Appellant’s
argument that the Tsuji clocks are provided to control the rate at which data
is read from the CCDs, and thus, do not control the rate of data display on
the monitor is not persuasive. (Reply Br. 4-5). We give the recited claim
element, “in order to … process a large number of image-pixel signals when
the patient-data-list-display scene is displayed on said monitor” (emphasis
added) the broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this interpretation
of the claim element, the distinction Appellant attempts to draw is irrelevant.
Lastly, it is irrelevant that Tsuji’s clocks are used in two different
endoscopes because the teaching related to using a higher second frequency
can be applied to the same endoscope.
Appellant repeats the same arguments with respect to independent
claims 7 and 16. (App. Br. 16-19). For the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Kanno, Nishikori, and Tsuji teaches or suggests all the
disputed limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Appeal 2010-005106
Application 09/726,558

7
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 16 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons discussed
above, and claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, and 12, which were not separately argued,
are unpatentable for the same reasons.
(2) Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 16 are not patentable.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and
16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD