INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2022

2020005361 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/840,744 12/13/2017 Murray A. Reicher P201701942XUS01-9134-02 5536 137160 7590 01/11/2022 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Merge/IBM) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER KELLS, ASHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2022 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com svlipl@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MURRAY A. REICHER and JAMES G. THOMPSON Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOYCE CRAIG, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 stand rejected in the Final Office Action as follows: 1. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Reicher (US 9,092,727 B1, issued July 28, 2015) (“Reicher”), Nelson et al. (US 2015/0103170 A1, published Apr. 16, 2015) (“Nelson”), and Wu et al. (US 2003/0147465 A1, published Aug. 7, 2003) (“Wu”). Final Act. 3. 2. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Reicher, Nelson, Wu, and Wu, and Shetterly et al. (US 2013/0314434 A1, published Nov. 28, 2013) (“Shetterly”). Final Act. 9. 3. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Reicher, Nelson, Wu, and Steigauf et al. (US 2016/0350919 A1, published Dec. 1, 2016) (Steigauf). Final Act. 10. 4. Claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Reicher, Nelson, and Williams et al. (US 2018/0144421 A1, published May 24, 2018) (“Williams”). Final Act. 10. 5. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Reicher, Nelson, Williams, and Iwasaki (US 2012/0250961 A1, published Oct. 4, 2012) (“Iwasaki”). Final Act. 12. Claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims and is copied below. The claim is annotated with bracketed numbers to reference the limitations in the claim. Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 3 1. A system for automatically processing an image included in an image study generated as part of a medical imaging procedure, the system comprising: at least one display device; at least one memory for storing images from one or more image studies; and an electronic processor configured to: [1] display a set of medical images corresponding to an image study on the at least one display device; [2] determine a first key image included in the set of medical images; [3] display the first key image within a montage template; [4] automatically, based on the position of the first key image within the montage template, annotate the first key image; [5] display the first key image, as annotated, within the montage template; [6] automatically select a second key image by executing one or more rules; and [7] automatically display the second key image within the montage template. CLAIM 1 Claim 1 is directed to a system for automatically processing an image included in an image study generated as part of a medical imaging procedure. The system comprises a display device, a memory for storing images, and an electronic processor. The processor is “configured to” perform seven steps that we have numbered [1]-[7] for reference. The phrase “configured to,” when used as it is here, requires that “the apparatus as provided must be ‘capable’ of performing the recited function, not that it might later be modified to perform that function.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (analyzing Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 4 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). For this reason, while the claim is not a method claim, we have addressed limitations [1]-[7] as steps that the system must be capable of performing. Limitation [1] of the claim requires the system to “display a set of medical images corresponding to an image study on the at least one display device.” Limitation [2] of the claim requires the system to “determine a first key image included in the set of medical images.” A “key image” is described in the Specification as a “term used in the medical” field as an “’important’” image in an imaging study. Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification explains that “[w]hen physicians, such as radiologists and cardiologists, review medical images captured as part of a clinical imaging procedure for the purpose of creating a clinical report, they commonly select key images.” Id. The key images “may be displayed in a montage, such as a single composite image or as individual images separately displayed.” Id. In limitation [3] of the claim, the first key image is displayed in the montage template. Although the term “montage template” is used throughout the Specification, including the title of the application, there is no definition of it. However, examples of montage templates are described in the Specification. For example, Figure 7 of the Specification shows a montage template which is a table of cells having two columns and four rows, where each cell in the table is labeled with a specific anatomical image. The cells in the montage template are referred to as “sub-containers.” Spec. ¶ 5. The Examiner found that Reicher describes displaying medical images corresponding to an image study, determining a key image, and displaying Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 5 the key image in a montage template, as in limitations [1], [2], and [3] of claim 1. Final Act. 3. Limitation [4] of claim 1 requires the system to “automatically, based on the position of the first key image within the montage template, annotate the first key image.” An annotation can include labeling the key image with the label assigned to the sub-container including the key image in the montage template. Claim 2 (Claims Appendix). Figure 3 of the Specification shows the images labeled with the type of image section, such as “LEFT SAGITAL” and “MIDDLE SAGITAL,” which we understand to be annotations. The annotated image is displayed within the montage template in limitation [5] of the claim. The Examiner found that Reicher annotates and displays annotated images, but does not disclose automatically annotating images as recited in limitation [4] of the claim. Final Act. 3-4. But the Examiner found that Nelson describes automatically annotating an image in a montage template. Id. In limitations [6] and [7] of the claim, a second key image is automatically selected by executing one or more rules and then the image is automatically displayed within the montage template. The Examiner found that Reicher describes using rules to select images, although not automatically. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found, however, that Wu describes selecting images automatically using rules. Id. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Nelson’s automatic annotation to allow for quicker and more consistent labeling of images as described by Nelson. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also concluded it would have been obvious to Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 6 one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Wu in Reicher’s method to “aid in the arrangement and selection of the montage, decreasing the user effort and allowing for the creation of a more effective presentation.” Id. at 4-5. We address Appellant’s arguments below. Limitation [4] of “automatically, based on the position of the first key image within the montage template, annotate the first key image” Appellant states that Nelson discloses annotating an image when the image is taken and that there is no disclosure of annotating an image later or providing image metadata later. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that there is no disclosure in Nelson of “determining a first key image from a set of medical images” as in limitation [1] of claim 1, placing the image in a montage, and “then automatically, based on the position of the first key image, annotate[ing] the key image” as in limitation [4] of the claim. Id. Appellant also argues that there is no motivation to apply Nelson to Reicher because “Reicher provides no [automatic] annotation and Nelson [provides] annotation only upon the creation of an image.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 2. Appellant, responding to the Examiner’s finding that automating an activity that was done manually in the prior art does not distinguish it over such prior art (Final Act. 4), argues that Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher- Price, Inc. 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed Cir. 2007), from which this principle is derived, does not apply. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues that Wu is not applicable to the claims because it describes a slide show with visual effects and transitions which is not related to “a show of medical images” and there would be no motivation to combine it with Reicher and Nelson. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 7 We begin the discussion with Reicher. Reicher describes selecting a key image for display in a montage of medical images, such as images that would be reviewed by a radiologist. Reicher 3:63-4:4; 4:16-23. This fact does not appear to be in dispute. Reicher also describes annotating the images: FIG. 2 is another example of a montage with a different number of images, including images that are formatted differently and include annotations (e.g., arrows pointing to areas of specific interest). Reicher 4:9-12. Figure 2 of Reicher is reproduced below: Figure 2 shows a montage of medical images annotated with arrows pointing to areas of interest, the orientation of the image (A, R, and L), the number of the image in the montage (1/5, 2/5, etc.), and the tissue being displayed (LUNG, CHEST, etc.). The number of the image (1/5, 2/5, etc.) and its orientation (A, R, and L) are both based on the position of the image in the montage as required by limitation [4] of claim 1 because the number is based on the cell in which the image is placed and the A, R, and L is based on the orientation of the image in the cell. Thus, Reicher describes limitation [4] of “based on the position of the first key image within the montage Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 8 template, annotate the first key image.” Nelson discloses automatic annotation as further required by limitation [4]. Nelson describes its disclosure as follows: The present disclosure relates generally to a system and method for capturing and labeling images. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to a system and method that captures and automatically labels images with identity information and with image pose or image attribute data to enable better processing of the images in conjunction with one or more applications such as repair estimate and insurance claim applications. Nelson ¶ 1. While Nelson describes systems and methods for capturing vehicle photos (Nelson ¶ 6), Nelson also describes its system as useful for medical diagnosis, including an image capture system for “various body parts of people for medical diagnostics” (id. ¶¶ 2, 64). Nelson describes automatically labeling (“i.e., annotated”) photos, pictures, and/or images. Nelson ¶ 6. Figure 5B of Nelson shows a montage template with cells or sub-containers for various parts of the car, such as “Left Front,” “Left Fender,” “Left T-bone,” “Right Front,” etc. Nelson explains: At a block 162, the obtained, captured image is associated with the pre-assigned identifier that corresponds to the selected, particular user control (block 165). That is, the captured image is associated with the pre-assigned identifier indicative of the respective portion of the vehicle. Nelson ¶ 36. The “pre-assigned identifier” uniquely identifies a portion of a vehicle. Nelson ¶ 29. Nelson discloses: Typically, the pre-assigned identifier is expressed in a computer-readable syntax (e.g., metadata or other constructed language, formal language, artificial language, or computer- Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 9 executable language) that is not readily understood by a human being, e.g., that is not a natural language. As used herein, the term ‘natural language’ refers to ordinary language or a language that arises in an unpremeditated fashion (e.g., naturally) as a result of the innate facility for language possessed by the human intellect. Nelson ¶ 29. Nelson further explains, with respect to Fig. 5B: The screen 300 also includes a plurality of user controls 305a- 305i surrounding a generalized vehicle representation 308. Each user control 305a-305i includes a respective natural language translation of the preassigned identifier corresponding to the respective portion, pose or view of a vehicle. In FIG. SA, no images of a subject vehicle have yet been captured. Nelson ¶ 50. Nelson describes image capture: In FIG. 5B, three images of the subject vehicle have been captured as a result of activation of user controls 305a, 305b and 305c. The captured images are displayed on the screen 300 in the corresponding user controls 305a, 305b and 305c along with their respective natural language labels. Nelson ¶ 51. To summarize, Nelson employs a montage template, as does claim 1, that includes controls for capturing images to add to the montage template. The images are automatically associated with a pre-assigned identifier and then placed in the montage template. Appellant argues that Nelson discloses annotating an image with a pre-assigned identifier when the image is taken, and not annotating it later as required by limitation [4] of claim 1. This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 10 To begin, Appellant’s argument is improperly based on Nelson alone, and does not take into consideration what the combined disclosures of Reicher and Nelson would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’’). As explained above, Reicher describes adding annotations to an image, such as numbering the image (1/5, 2/5, etc.) and labeling its orientation (A, L, R), both of which would be based on the position of the image in the montage, i.e., in the first cell (1/5) and oriented such that the top is the anterior (“A”) of the image. Claim 1 does not necessarily require that limitations [3] and [4] are sequentially performed and that the annotation has to be done before inserting the image into the montage. Moreover, even if the claim requires displaying the key image in the montage and then annotating it, any order of steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reicher teaches that “the radiologist composes the montage by selecting one or more key images from one or more image series, and by adjusting various view settings of the images, such as . . . . annotations” (Reicher 4:2-6) and thus does not require the annotation to be added either before or after the selected image is placed in the montage template. As held in In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946), “the order of performing the steps” was considered obvious, absent “any new and unexpected results. See also Manual of Patent Examining Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 11 Procedure § 2144.04 (IV)(C) (citing Burhans as holding “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or) unexpected results”) (Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019, Last Revised June 2020). See also Specification, Figure 5, showing step 510 of “Automatically Annotate the Key Image based on the Position within the Montage Template” followed by step 512 of “Display Key Image with Annotation within Montage Template,” indicating that annotation can precede display of the key image. Nelson describes automatically adding the pre-assigned identifier to the image (Nelson ¶ 36), but the image can be subsequently annotated with natural language translation of the identifier. As indicated in paragraphs 29 and 50 of Nelson reproduced above, the pre-assigned identifier is in computer-readable syntax which would be translated to natural language for display on an image. Nelson is concerned with adding the pre-assigned computer syntax identifier when the image is taken (Nelson ¶ 1), but does not teach that the natural language annotations must be added to the image at the same time as the pre-assigned identifier has been added or limit the period as to when the natural language translation is added to the image. In sum, the Examiner provided adequate evidence of the obviousness combining Reicher and Nelson to result in annotating the key image prior to its insertion into the montage. Automation limitations The Examiner found that “a broad claim of an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that this principle, taken Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 12 from Leapfrog, is not applicable here because Bevan in Leapfrog used an electric motor to produce sound rather than a processor and the automatic selection in the rejected claim here “differs from the similar mechanical and computer generated sounds output in both instances by a manual selection as set forth in Leapfrog.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument does not persuasively demonstrate Examiner error. In Leapfrog, a prior art reference relied upon in making the obviousness rejection was the Texas Instruments Super Speak & Read (“SSR”). The court explained: The SSR is a more modern type of prior art learning toy, constructed with electronic components, that has a slightly different mode of operation than Bevan. The SSR has a hinged plastic housing that opens to lie flat. Books for use with the toy fit into a recess in the housing. The housing contains switches that can detect when a child presses on different areas of the books’ pages. The housing also contains a processor, memory, and a speaker to produce sounds. Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161. The court held: Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes that goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years. Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161. The court further explained: We agree with the district court that one of ordinary skill in the art of children’s learning toys would have found it obvious to combine the Bevan device with the SSR to update it using modern electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 13 While the SSR only permits generation of a sound corresponding to the first letter of a word, it does so using electronic means. The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention (Bevan) using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art (the SSR). Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Citing Leapfrog, Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc., 626 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010) held “applying computer and internet technology to replace older electronics has been commonplace in recent years.” Neither of Leapfrog and Western Union limit its holdings to the specific devices used in each case, but instead more generally refer to the obviousness of replacing older technology with newer technology. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that automating image annotation and second key image selection as described in Nelson and Wu, respectively, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the application of modern computer technology to a manual operation. Wu The Examiner cited Wu for disclosing the selection of images based on executing a computer rule. Final Act. 4. Appellant asserts there would have been no motivation to apply Wu to Reicher and Nelson because the rules described in Wu are related to special effects and other conditions, but not medical images. Appeal Br. 13. In response to the Examiner’s finding in the Answer that Wu teaches rules selecting a key image in a template (Ans. 9), Appellant states “Wu may automatically teach rules for selecting a Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 14 sequence of key image slots for sequential display, but not an arrangement that displays multiple key images at the same time.” Reply Br. 4. This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. As found by the Examiner, Wu teaches selecting images for key slots from a group of images: Once the presentation skeleton 400 has been defined in the step 102, and the candidate groups of sub-image sets have been provided in the step 104, the method 100 is directed to a step 106 that selects sub-image sets from the candidate groups 742, . . . , 744. These selected sub-image sets are assigned to key image slots in the presentation skeleton 400 in accordance with key-slot rules specified in the template 1014. Wu ¶ 78. The template 1014 defines the key slots in the presentation skeleton 400, as well as defining the associated properties of the key slots. In one example, the first and last slots of the presentation skeleton 400 are defined as key slots, and sub- image sets are selected for these key slots. One or more sub- image sets can also optionally be selected to occupy intermediate key slots between the first and last key slots. Wu ¶ 79. Thus, we discern see no error in Examiner’s fact-based finding that Wu describes selecting key images. Wu also describes using rules to select the images: Once the locations and properties of the key slots have been determined according to the slot rules in the template, sub- image sets are selected for the key slots on the basis of the aforementioned key slot rules. Wu ¶ 95 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument that Wu does not describe displaying multiple key images at the same time ignores what the combined disclosures Wu, Reicher, and Nelson would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 15 at the time of the invention. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 at 425. Reicher expressly discloses that a radiologist can compose the montage “by selecting one or more key images from one or more image series.” Reicher 4:2-4. Wu is relied upon for the teaching that rules may be used to select the one or more key images described by Reicher. In sum, Appellant did not persuasively demonstrate an error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to apply Wu to Reicher to decrease user effort. Final Act. 5. CLAIM 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine the first key image automatically by applying one or more rules.” The Examiner cited Wu for selecting images based executing a rule. Final Act. 6. Appellant separately argues this claim, but does not address Wu. Appeal Br. 13. Accordingly, the rejection is affirmed for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. CLAIM 10 The Examiner rejected independent claim 10 based on the same combination of Reicher, Nelson, and Wu. Final Act. 6-8. Appellant argues that the cited reference do not disclose the following limitations recited in claim 10: automatically determining a second key image with the electronic processor by executing one or more rules; and automatically displaying the second key image within a second one of the plurality of sub-containers within the montage template. Appellant’s arguments regarding the “automatically determining” and “automatically displaying” limitations are the same for the corresponding Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 16 automatic limitations recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14-15. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 10 for the same reasons as for claim 1. CLAIM 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites: wherein the montage template is displayed before the determination of the first key image, and wherein the display of the set of medical images is a first tab provided on the display device and the montage template is a second tab provided on the display device, wherein receiving of the determination of the first key image includes the user dragging the first key image from the first tab to a sub-container included in the montage template provided as the second tab on the display device. The Examiner rejected claim 7 based on Reicher, Nelson, Wu, and Shetterly. Final Act. 9. The Examiner found that Shetterly describes dragging images from a first tab to a template. Id. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Shetterly to Reicher, Nelson, and Wu to “allow for a user to quickly and intuitively interact with the system.” Id. at 10. Appellant contends “there is no motivation to provide the clip and drag of Shetterly for the arrangement of Reicher, Nelson, and Wu” because Shetterly “does not disclose or suggest an image study . . . as part of a medical imaging procedure” and it describes making a composite image not a medical montage of medical images. Appeal Br. 16. We have considered this argument, but it does not persuasively demonstrate an error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner explained how the combination of Reicher, Nelson, and Wu would benefit from Shetterly’s technique. Final Act 10. Appellant did not identify a defect in Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 17 this reasoning, but rather only argued Shetterly was concerned with “creating an artful collage,” without addressing its broader disclosure of a technique that makes image manipulation easier. Final Act. 16. An explicit suggestion to modify the prior art is unnecessary to establish obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). KSR held that an obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. The rejection is affirmed. CLAIM 18 Appellant separately argues claim 18. Claim 18 is reproduced below: 18. A non-transitory computer medium including instructions that, when executed as a set of instructions by an electronic processor perform a set of operations comprising: displaying a montage template including a plurality of sub-containers, wherein a first one of the plurality of sub- containers is designated as a required sub-container; displaying at least one key image associated with an image study within a second one of the plurality of sub- containers; and preventing a user from submitting a finding for the image study in response to the first one of the plurality of sub- containers not including a key image. The Examiner rejected claim 18 based on Reicher, Nelson, and Williams. Final Act. 11. The Examiner cited Nelson and Reicher for the first and second steps of claim 18, which include designating a first sub-container as “required.” For the third step of “preventing a user from submitting a Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 18 finding for the image study in response to the first one of the plurality of sub-containers not including a key image,” Appellant cited Williams. Id. Appellant contends that “there is no motivation to modify the medical imaging arrangement of Reicher with the vehicle imaging arrangement of Nelson, except in an attempt to obtain the claimed arrangement.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant reads Nelson too narrowly. As already explained above, Nelson describes its method as used for “performing remote or out-patient medical diagnosis and treatments, etc.” (Nelson ¶ 2) and its capture and labeling system as useful to capture and label various body parts of people for medical diagnosis (id. ¶ 64). Thus, Nelson’s teaching of required images (id. ¶ 49) would be understood by one of ordinary skill as applicable to medical diagnosis and therefore reasonably suggesting the first step of claim 18 of “wherein a first one of the plurality of sub-containers is designated as a required sub-container” (emphasis added). Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Williams in combination with Reicher and Nelson suggests the last limitation of claim 18 of “preventing a user from submitting a finding for the image study in response to the first one of the plurality of sub-containers not including a key image.” Appeal Br. 18. First, Appellant argues that Williams “merely discloses a template of boxes,” in which “all of the boxes or fields must be filled with some characters for the court filing or other information to be complete,” but is “not concerned with images.” Id. Second, Appellant argues that only one sub-container must be left unfilled in claim 18 for its finding to be prevented from being submitted, while Williams requires them all to be filled. Id. Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 19 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Williams discloses “if the required fields of the user input form are not completed,” the submit button may be grey out and unselectable or the form returned “with unfilled-but- required fields highlighted with an indication such as ‘please fill out required fields.’” Williams ¶ 134 (cited at Final Act. 11). It is clear from this disclosure that there is no requirement in Williams that every box must be filled in, for a user to be prevented from submitting the form. Williams teaches one ordinary skill in the art that, when certain required fields are left unfilled, the user will be unable to submit the form until they are filled in so the required information is submitted with the form. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on Williams’s teaching that, if an image is required for medical diagnosis, and it is left out of the montage template, preventing the montage from being submitted until it contains the required image would ensure that the physician has the complete set of images to make a medical diagnosis. The rejection is affirmed. CLAIMS NOT ADDRESSED SEPARATELY Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are not argued separately, and by Appellant’s admission fall with parent claims 1, 10, and 18. Appeal Br. 6. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-005361 Application 15/840,744 20 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16 103 Reicher, Nelson, Wu 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16 7 103 Reicher, Nelson, Wu, Shetterly 7 12 103 Reicher, Nelson, Wu, Steigauf 12 18, 19 103 Reicher, Nelson, Williams 18, 19 20 103 Reicher, Nelson, Williams, Iwasaki 20 Overall Outcome 1-8, 10-16, 18-20 TIME PERIOD 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