Ex Parte Sanjay-Gopal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2014

10572776 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SETHUMADAVAN SANJAY-GOPAL,
SCOTT KENNETH POHLMAN, and JACOB SCOTT
____________

Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,7761
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims directed
to an imaging communication system. The Examiner rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Claims 1–10, 15, and 22–30 are on appeal, and can be found in the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 21–27).2 Independent claim
1 is representative and reads as follows:

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

2
1. An imaging communication system for communicating
between an imaging workstation, from which imaging protocols
are conducted and at which diagnostic images are displayed,
and one or more medical professionals, the system comprising:
the workstation including:
an input device by which a user selects and
addresses one or more medical professionals and
selects diagnostic image representations to be sent
to the one or more selected medical professionals;
a unit which formats the at least one selected
medical professional address and the selected
diagnostic image representations into a wireless
transmission format and wirelessly transmits the
selected electronic image representation with the
selected medical professional address;
a plurality of remote units, each remote unit
including:
a receiver which receives wireless
transmissions from workstations and from other
remote units;
an address reader connected with the
receiver which address reader examines each
received wireless transmission for a corresponding
preselected address;
a video processor connected with the
receiver to, in response to the address reader
finding the corresponding preselected address in
the received wireless communication, convert a
diagnostic image portion of the received wireless
transmission into an appropriate format for human-
readable display; and
a display device on which the diagnostic
image is displayed in human-readable format.

2 With their Appeal Brief, Appellants filed an After Final Amendment
correcting a typographical error and improper claim dependency (App. Br.
4). Appellants’ Claim Appendix reflects these amendments (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner has not acted on this Amendment, but appears to have treated
the claims in accordance with the proposed amendments (Ans. 6, 15).
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

3
Independent claims 8 and 22 contain similar limitations, and require
“a plurality of portable units” that receive wireless transmissions and display
images.
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 10, 15, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Ma (Ans. 4–5);3
II. Claims 2–7 and 27–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ma and Sumanaweera (Ans. 5–6);4 and
III. Claims 8, 9, 22–25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Ma, Sumanaweera, and Gelvin (Ans. 6–9).5

I. THE ISSUE: ANTICIPATION BY MA

The Examiner finds that Ma meets all limitations of claims 1, 10, 15,
and 26 (see Ans. 4–5, 10–12).
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Ma does not disclose “remote units
by which the selected medical professional wirelessly receives the diagnostic
image” (Ans. 14).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s finding that Ma disclosed remote units for receiving
image data?

3 Ma et al., US 2005/0063575 A1, published Mar. 24, 2005.
4 Sumanaweera et al., US 2005/0049495 A1, published Mar. 3, 2005.
5 Gelvin et al., US 7,797,367 B1, issued Sep. 14, 2010.
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

4
FINDINGS OF FACT

FF1. Ma’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:

“FIG. 2 is a diagram of a system . . . [including] an operator-interactive
medical imaging apparatus system [138]” (Ma ¶ 36).
FF2. Ma discloses that the medical imaging apparatus system 138
“includ[es] an operator-interactive workstation computer 10 having a display
monitor 12, a keyboard 14, and a pointing device 13. . . . [and] a processor
16” (id. ¶ 72, ll. 2–7).
FF3. Ma discloses that “the workstation computer 10 is interfaced
with and connected to four server computers including, in particular, a pulse
sequence server computer 18, a data acquisition server computer 20, a data
processing server computer 22, and a data store server computer 23” (id. ¶
73, ll. 1–5).
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

5
FF4. Ma discloses that the workstation 10 and server computers 18,
20, and 22 communicate through “a 100 BaseT Ethernet serial
communications network” (id. ¶ 74, ll. 1–10).
FF5. Ma discloses that “pulse sequence server computer 18 exercises
real-time control of the system elements within the medical imaging
apparatus 140 during a scan operation” (id. ¶ 78, ll. 1–3).
FF6. Ma discloses that:
In some scans, the data acquisition server computer 20 does
little more than pass the acquired NMR data to the data
processor server computer 22. However, in scans that require
information derived from acquired NMR data to control the
further performance of the scan, the data acquisition server
computer 20 is programmed to produce such information and
convey it to the pulse sequence server computer 18.
(Id. ¶ 79, ll. 7–14).
FF7. Ma discloses that “data processing server computer 22 receives
NMR data from the data acquisition server computer 20 and processes it in
accordance with description components downloaded from the workstation
10” (id. ¶ 81, ll. 1–4).
FF8. Ma discloses that a snap shot controller 54 “form[s] agents 68,
70, 72, 74, and 76 . . . . Each resulting agent includes a set of objects that can
direct operation of a server computer to carry out specific tasks during a
scan” (id. ¶ 100, ll. 4–11) and that the agents are downloaded to
“corresponding functional servers 80, 82, 84, 86, and 88. Functional servers
80, 82, 84, and 86 reside on the three server computers 18, 20, and 22, and
the data is conveyed through an Ethernet serial communications network.
The data store server 88 resides on the workstation computer 10” (id. ¶ 102,
ll. 1–13).
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW

“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[A]nticipation of a claim under [35 U.S.C.] § 102 can be found only
if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.” In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
ANALYSIS

The Examiner finds that Ma discloses “a plurality of remote units or
server computers 18, 20, and 22 [0074] or servers 80, 82, 84, 86, and 88
[0105]” (Ans. 4–5, 10). Appellants contend that “[t]hese servers are
described as being part of the workstation of the technician who operates the
magnetic resonance scanner. There is no suggestion of . . . remote units by
which the selected medical professional wirelessly receives the diagnostic
image” (App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4–5). We agree with Appellants.
According to Appellants, diagnostic imaging often occurs when a
medical professional is located away from an imaging apparatus, leading to
inefficiencies (Spec. 1, ll. 9–14). The Specification states:
If there is any question whether the scan had the right contrast,
covered the right region, or the like, it is necessary to page the
medical specialist who can be in some other remote part of the
hospital performing other duties. Depending on the size of the
hospital, there could be a 10–15 minute wait for the paged
medical specialist to terminate the duties being performed and
reach a viewing terminal, review the images, and approve them.
(Id.).
Appellants, therefore, disclose a system in which diagnostic images are
transmitted to remote, portable units enabling “speedy review of scans for
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

7
accuracy and completeness and timely release of patients from the scanning
premises” by the medical professional (id. at 3, ll. 5–6). These remote,
portable units allow an imaging technician to “communicate with
radiologists at remote locations around the hospital” or “at locations remote
from the hospital” (id. at 6, ll.17–23). Appellants disclose that the remote,
portable units may include a “personal digital assistant device (PDA) or a
tablet PC or other portable hardware unit 60, which has an associated remote
transmitting/receiving means or transmitter/receiver 62” (id. at 5, ll. 3–7).
The term “remote” identifies units that are located away from the
imaging apparatus and workstation (id. at 6, ll. 17–23). By contrast, Ma
discloses that the servers are located with, and connected to, the imaging
workstation (FF2, FF3, FF8).6 We find, therefore, that Ma’s servers cannot
reasonably be considered “remote units.”
The Examiner also finds that the servers receive wireless
transmissions from workstations through network 132 (Ans. 4–5, 10). Ma,
however, discloses that the servers and the imaging workstation 10
communicate through a 100 BaseT Ethernet serial communications network
(FF3, FF4), i.e., a wired, not wireless, network. The wireless network 132
identified by the Examiner does not connect the imaging workstation 10 to
the servers, but rather connects the entire system 138 to other systems 130,

6 The Examiner identifies “workstation 118” as the “imaging workstation”
of claim 1 (Ans. 4). Workstation 118 is shown in Fig. 1 as part of a “generic
medical imaging apparatus system upon which at least part of the present
invention is based” (Ma ¶ 35). We understand imaging workstation 118 in
Fig. 1 to be analogous to imaging workstation 10 in Fig. 2, as both are
connected to an input (114 in Fig. 1; 13, 14 in Fig. 2), an output
(respectively 116; 12, 42), servers (respectively 113, 124, 126; 23, 18, 20,
22), and an imaging apparatus (respectively 110; 140), and are used to
obtain diagnostic images.
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

8
134, 136 (FF1). We find, therefore, that Ma’s servers do not include “a
receiver which receives wireless transmissions” and “an address reader . . .
[that] examines each received wireless transmission.”
The Examiner finds that the servers include a video processor and
display (Ans. 5). The Examiner, however, has not identified where Ma
discloses that the servers include a “video processor” or convert a received
image portion into human-readable format. Rather, Ma discloses that server
18 controls operation of the imaging apparatus 140 (FF5); that server 20
passes acquired imaging data to server 22 (FF6); and that server 22
processes received image data (FF7). Additionally, the displays identified
by the Examiner (116 or 142) are not included in each server (FF1). We
find, therefore, that Ma’s servers do not include “video processor” and “a
display.”
It is the Examiner’s burden to present a prima facie case of
unpatentability. Here, the Examiner identifies only the servers as the
“remote units” of claim 1. We find that these servers are not “remote” and
do not meet additional limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Thus, we
cannot sustain the rejection based on anticipatory grounds. Whether this
limitation may have been obvious over Ma, either alone or in combination
(see, e.g., Ma ¶ 82, ll. 18–22; ¶ 118, ll. 47–52), is a question that is not
before us and we will not speculate in the first instance on appeal.
In sum, because the Examiner has not identified a plurality of remote
units as claimed, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 10, 15, and 26.

Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

9
II. THE ISSUE: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MA AND SUMANAWEERA

The rejection of claims 2–7 and 27–29 over Ma and Sumanaweera
relies on the underlying anticipation rejection of claim 1. Having reversed
the rejection of claim 1, we necessarily reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 2–7 and 27–29.

III. THE ISSUE: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MA, SUMANAWEERA, AND
GELVIN

CLAIMS 23–25
The rejection of claims 23–25 over Ma, Sumanaweera, and Gelvin
relies on the underlying anticipation rejection of claim 1. Having reversed
the rejection of claim 1, we necessarily reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 23–25.
CLAIMS 8, 9, AND 30
Independent claim 8 contains limitations similar to those of claim 1,
including “a plurality of portable units,” wherein each portable unit includes
“a remote receiving means for receiving wireless transmissions,” “an
address reading means . . . for examining each received wireless
transmission,” “a video processing means . . . [for] converting an electronic
image portion of the received wireless transmission into an appropriate
format for human-readable display,” and a “monitor means . . . for
generating the human readable display” (claim 8).
The Examiner finds claims 8, 9, and 30 to be obvious over Ma,
Sumanaweera, and Gelvin, and relies on the same teachings of Ma as
discussed above with respect to claim 1 (Ans. 6–7). For the same reasons
discussed above, we find that the Examiner has not identified “a plurality of
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

10
portable units” as claimed. Specifically, Ma’s servers are located with, and
connected to, the imaging workstation and are, therefore, not portable.
Additionally, Ma does not disclose that the servers receive or examine
wireless transmissions or include a video processing means or monitor
means. We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 8 and dependent claims 9 and 30.
CLAIM 22
Independent claim 22 contains limitations similar to those of claim 1,
including “a plurality of portable units,” wherein each portable unit includes
“a wireless communications unit which each portable unit receives the
patient information, diagnostic images and optical images wirelessly
transmitted from the workstation and addressed to it and wirelessly transmits
instructions input on an input unit to the workstation” and “a display on
which the diagnostic and optical images are displayed” (claim 22).
The Examiner found claim 22 obvious over Ma, Sumanaweera, and
Gelvin, and relied on the teachings of Ma as discussed above with respect to
claim 1 (Ans. 6–7). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the
Examiner has not identified “a plurality of portable units” as claimed.
Specifically, Ma’s servers are located with, and connected to, the imaging
workstation and are, therefore, not portable. Additionally, Ma does not
disclose that the servers receive wireless transmissions from the workstation
or include a display. We, therefore, reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 22.
SUMMARY

We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 10, 15, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Ma.
Appeal 2012-006910
Application 10/572,776

11
We reverse the rejection of claims 2–7 and 27–29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ma and Sumanaweera.
We reverse the rejection of claims 8, 9, 22–25, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ma, Sumanaweera, and Gelvin.

REVERSED

Klh