Ex Parte Vozick et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2004

09924831 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID VOZICK and JAMES JOHNSON
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 18, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for hands-free
command and control of a dental imaging system. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for hands-free command and control of a
dental imaging system having a display monitor, a microphone and
a storage device storing a plurality of dental images
corresponding to a selected dental patient, comprising:
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
2
a speech recognition unit which converts to electronic
speech data a voice command received through the microphone to
select one of the plurality of dental images for viewing; and
a command and control processor for the electronic speech
data received from said speech recognition unit, wherein said
command and control processor causes the selected dental image to
be retrieved from the storage device and then displayed on the
display monitor.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Dewaele 6,047,257 Apr. 04, 2000
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dewaele.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed November 4, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No. 15,
filed August 13, 2003) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 18.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that the only
difference between Dewaele and appellants' claims is that Dewaele
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
3
is not specifically directed to dental images. The examiner,
however, essentially contends that it would have been obvious to
extend Dewaele's medical imaging method and apparatus to the
field of dentistry for the same benefits.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 10) that the examiner "did not
properly analyze the differences between the Dewaele reference
and the claimed invention." Appellants contend that the examiner
did not take into consideration the problem solved by appellants
nor "other pertinent differences." More specifically, appellants
assert (Brief, pages 11-13) that Dewaele is not concerned with
"the risk of infection to a dental patient caused by manual
operation of computer input devices of a dental imaging system
while attending to the patient" (Brief, page 11). Dewaele
instead "is concerned with speed and accuracy of entry of
identification data which is to be associated with a medical
image" (Brief, page 13). Further, appellants point out (Brief,
pages 14-18) that Dewaele uses speech recognition and voice
command processing for providing identification information to be
associated with an image rather than for selecting, retrieving
for display, and manipulating an image.
We agree with appellants that Dewaele fails to teach using
speech recognition and voice command processing for selecting and
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
1 We note that we find nothing in the claim that requires manipulation
of the image by voice commands.
4
retrieving an image for display.1 Dewaele clearly discloses
(column 3, lines 54-67, and column 7, lines 46-49) an
identification station which includes a speech recognition
subassembly for providing input data via speech. Dewaele further
teaches (column 9, lines 16-29) that a medical image is taken and
stored on a cassette which is then transferred to the
identification station. At the identification station, the
operator utters identification information, i.e., the operator's
name, the patient's name, the type of examination represented by
the image, the layout parameters as to how the image will be
processed and displayed (such as the patient's position, the
cassette's position, and the exposure class), and the place where
the image is to be printed or viewed (see column 9, line 39-
column 11, line 38). Once the information is converted by the
speech recognition unit and stored with the image on the
cassette, the cassette is removed from the identification station
and entered into a read out apparatus where the image is
processed according to the stored processing parameters (see
column 11, lines 39-45). Nowhere does the operator use a voice
command "to select one of the plurality of dental images for
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
5
viewing," as recited in each of independent claims 1, 15, and 17.
The operator in Dewaele merely identifies and labels the medical
images, all of which are to be viewed later in another location.
The examiner, in responding to appellants' arguments,
asserts that Dewaele "does retrieve and use images stored in
diagnosing or analyzing patient data (Col.5, line 44-Col.6, line
6), and transcribing it. Dewaele identifies medical images
through speech recognition by accessing them when needed from a
storage database, identifiable using the patient's particulars."
However, the portion relied upon by the examiner merely states
that voice processing is useful for identification in a radiology
department of a hospital. Dewaele specifies at the top of column
6 that the voice processing is for inputting examination type,
image destination type, patient's birthday, sex, and index, image
layout parameters, and the number of hardcopies requested.
Dewaele further states (column 6, lines 43-46) that data
identifying a medical image are input to an identification
station and then transferred to the memory on the cassette where
the image is stored. Nowhere does Dewaele teach or suggest that
the voice commands inputting identifying information select an
image for display. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
6
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 15, and 17 nor of their
dependents, claims 2 through 14, 16, and 18.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG/vsh
Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
7
Norman H. Zivin
Cooper & Dunham LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York NY 10036