Ex Parte Song et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

11702794 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111702,794 0210512007
38790 7590 11/25/2016
THE SMALL PA TENT LAW GROUP LLC
225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Samuel Moon-Ho Song
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.
TSS 10000-0002US 8796
EXAMINER
HO,ALLENC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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):
Docket@splglaw.com
ccarroll@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL MOON-HO SONG and DOUGLAS PERRY BOYD 1
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and PETER F.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 58-83.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 TeleSecurity Sciences, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
2 We do not address the issues raised by Appellants regarding the
Examiner's objections to certain claims as containing informalities (Br. 10).
Such issues relate to petitionable, rather than appealable, matters. See the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1201 (MPEP, 9th ed., Rev. July
2015).
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a system to analyze the content of a packed bag
comprising an enterprise server 20 configured to receive scan data from one
or more remotely-located scanners 8 and configured to render volumetric
data sets from the scan data, and remotely-located multiple local terminals
12 conveying inquiries to the enterprise server for scan data of interest to
users of the terminals, wherein the enterprise server also is configured to
service the terminals by performing electronic unpacking of the volumetric
data sets in response to inquiries from the terminals (independent claim 58,
Fig. 1 ). Appellants also claim a corresponding method to analyze the
content of a packed bag (independent claim 72).
A copy of representative claim 58, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
58. A system to analyze a content of a packed bag, comprising:
an enterprise server configured to receive scan data
acquired by one or more scanners located remotely from the
enterprise server, the scan data being representative of content
of baggage scanned by the one or more scanners, the scan data
being conveyed to the enterprise server substantially in real-
time; and
the enterprise server configured to render volumetric data
sets from the scan data, the volumetric data sets including voxel
values for a scannable characteristic throughout a volume of
interest in the baggage; and
multiple local terminals located remotely from the
enterprise server and the one or more scanners, the multiple
local terminals having user interfaces and displays, the multiple
local terminals conveying inquiries to the enterprise server for
scan data of interest to users of the multiple local terminals; and
the enterprise server configured to service the multiple
local terminals by performing electronic unpacking of the
volumetric data sets, in response to the inquiries from the
multiple local terminals, the electronic unpacking producing a
2
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
rendered view of the contents of the baggage based on voxel
values from the volumetric data sets and based on the inquiries
from the multiple local terminals.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
claims 58, 59, 61, 62, 66-68, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 79-81 as
unpatentable over McClelland (US 6,707,879 B2, issued Mar. 16 2004) in
view of Simanovsky (US 6,026,143, issued Feb. 15, 2000) and Kling (US
6,907,099 B2, issued June 14, 2005) (Non-final Action (dated October 24,
2014) 4--10);
claims 60, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74, 78, and 82 as unpatentable over
McClelland, Simanovsky, Kling, and Acharya (US 6,298,112 Bl, issued Oct.
2, 2001) (id. at 10-14); and
claims 63, 71, 77, and 83 over McClelland, Simanovsky, Kling, and
Peschmann (US 5, 182,764, issued Jan. 26, 1993) (id. at 14--17).
Appellants present arguments specifically directed to independent
claims 58 and 72 (Br. 10-19) as well as dependent claims 60, 64, 65, 69, 74,
78, and 82 (id. at 19-22). No separate arguments are specifically directed to
the remaining dependent claims (see, e.g., id. at 19 and 23). Accordingly,
these remaining dependent claims will stand or fall with the claims from
which they depend. We select claim 58 as representative of the independent
claims.
We sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Non-final Action, the Answer, and below.
In rejecting claim 58, the Examiner finds that McClelland discloses a
package screening system for analyzing the content of a packed bag
comprising an enterprise server configured to receive scan data from
3
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
remotely-located scanners and multiple local terminals located remotely
from the enterprise server but does not disclose the claim features wherein
the enterprise server is configured to render volumetric data sets from the
scan data, wherein the multiple local terminals convey inquiries to the
enterprise server for scan data of interest, and wherein the enterprise server
is configured to service the multiple local terminals by performing electronic
unpacking of the volumetric data sets in response to such inquiries (Non-
final Action 4--5). Regarding these deficiencies, the Examiner additionally
finds that Simanovsky discloses a computed tomography imaging system
comprising a reconstruction processor configured to render volumetric data
sets from scan data and to perform electronic unpacking of the volumetric
data sets (id. at 5---6) and that Kling discloses a computed tomography
imaging system comprising an enterprise server (601-4) and multiple local
terminals (801-3) wherein the enterprise server is configured to render
volumetric data sets (i.e., alternative image reconstructions) from scan data
in response to inqmnes from the terminals (id. at 6 (citing Kling col. 6, l.
59---col. 7, 1. 3)).
In light of these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to configure the enterprise server of McClelland to render
volumetric data sets from the scan data, in accordance with the teachings of
Simanovsky, and to service the multiple local terminals by performing
electronic unpacking of the volumetric data sets in response to inquiries
from the multiple local terminals, in accordance with the teachings of
Simanovsky and Kling, so as to improve inspection performance (id.).
Appellants argue that Kling would not have suggested providing
McClelland' s system with an enterprise server configured to operate as
claimed (Br. 16-17) because "Kling does not teach or suggest an enterprise
4
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
server" (id. at 17). Specifically, Appellants argue that "Kling's computers
60 ... do not constitute enterprise servers" (id.).
Appellants' argument lacks persuasive merit because it does not
explain why the Examiner is believed to have erred in finding that Kling's
computers 601-4 constitute an enterprise server (Non-final Action 6). On the
other hand, the Specification supports a determination that the computers or
workstations 60 of Kling (see col. 6, 11. 25-26) are servers because
Appellants' workstations or terminals 12 are described expressly as servers
(Spec. i-f 31 ). Moreover, Kling's server comprising computers 60 is
appropriately considered an enterprise server because, like Appellants'
claimed and disclosed enterprise server, it services remotely-located multiple
local computers (i.e., terminals or workstations) 80. Further, Appellants'
argument lacks persuasive merit because it does not address specifically, and
therefore does not show error in, the Examiner's conclusion that it would
have been obvious to configure the enterprise server of McClelland to
respond to inqmnes from ivicClelland's multiple local terminals in view of
Kling's above-mentioned teachings (Non-final Action 6).
For the reasons stated above and given by the Examiner, Appellants
fail to show error in the rejection based on McClelland, Simanovsky, and
Kling.
In the rejection based on McClelland, Simanovsky, Kling, and
Acharya, the Examiner concludes that, in view of Acharya's teaching (i.e., at
column 13, line 61---column 14, line 5), it would have been obvious to
provide the modified-McClelland system with the features of a remote
expert terminal, an expert-on-demand service, and a view sharing link as
required by dependent claims 60, 64, 65, 69, 74, 78, and 82 (Non-final
Action 10-14 ).
5
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
Appellants challenge this obviousness conclusion by arguing, for
example, that "there are far simpler known solutions to provide access to
screening experts" (Br. 20), that Acharya concerns a medical imaging
system and "does NOT provide any suggest[ion] to use any portion of
Acharya's system with a baggage scanning system" (id.), that "[t]here are
other solutions to provide access to screening experts ... [such as] screening
experts [who] are on-site" (id. at 21-22), and that "Acharya does not refer to
the concept of an EoD service even within the field of medical imaging" (id.
at 22).
Appellants' arguments ineffectively attack Acharya individually.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As correctly explained by the Examiner, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 9). In addition to In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
(CCPA 1981) cited by the Examiner, see also Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For
the reasons detailed by the Examiner, Acharya's teaching of remote services
such as contractual arrangements, expert on-line assistance for image
analysis, and other expert-aided operations (col. 13, 1. 59---col. 14, 1. 5) in
combination with the other applied reference teachings would have
suggested providing the modified-McClelland system with the claim
features under review (see Non-final Action 10-14, Ans. 8-11).
In summary, because Appellants fail to show error on the Examiner's
part, we have sustained each of the § 103 rejections on appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
6
Appeal2016-001016
Application 11/702,794
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
7