UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NIRMAL MUKUND KARI, SCOTT WILLIAM PETRICK, and CHRISTOPHER UNGER Appeal 2011-002161 Technology Center 2600 Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and MATTHEW CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE 1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants invention generally relates to transmission of data to and from portable X-ray detectors. Specification 0001. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A portable imaging device comprising: a processor; a memory operably coupled to the processor; a detector connection point operably coupled to the processor and operable to communicate data through a wired communication path the data further comprising image data; and a wireless transceiver operably coupled to the processor and operable to communicate data with a digital medical diagnostic imaging system through a wireless communication path, wherein the image data further comprises high-resolution images and low-resolution images, 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants Appeal Brief ( App. Br., filed May 13, 2010) and the Examiner s Answer ( Ans., mailed Aug. 5, 2010), and Final Rejection ( Final Rej., mailed Nov. 13, 2009). 2
Anderson Polichar Knuutila Polichar Hoskins Homiller Ohara Serceki wherein the processor is operable to withhold the high resolution images from transmission through the wired communication path, the processor is operable to transfer nearly immediately the low-resolution images through the wireless communication path and the processor is operable to store the high-resolution images to the memory until the wired communication path is active, and the processor is operable to transmit the high-resolution images through the wired communication path upon activation of the wired communication path. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: US 4,692,806 US 5,909,478 US 6,131,040 US 6,205,199 B1 US 2003/0106067 A1 US 2005/0165911 A1 US 2005/0273366 A1 US 2007/0140424 A1 Sep. 8, 1987 Jun. 1, 1999 Oct. 10, 2000 Mar. 20, 2001 Jun. 5, 2003 Jul. 28, 2005 Dec. 8, 2005 Jun. 21, 2007 (filed Dec. 19, 2005) Howard Frazier, The 802.3z Gigabit Ethernet Standard, IEEE Standards Board, (1998)(hereinafter Frazier ). REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 14, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '478 and Homiller. Claims 5 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '478, Homiller, and Anderson. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '478, Homiller, and Knuutila. 3
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '478, Homiller, Knuutila, and Hoskins. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '199 and Homiller. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '199, Homiller, and Frazier. Claims 11 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '199, Homiller, and Serceki. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '199, Homiller, and Knuutila. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '199, Homiller, Knuutila, and Hoskins. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '478, Homiller, and Serceki. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polichar '478, Homiller, and Ohara. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-23 turns on whether the Examiner erred in finding that Homiller teaches or suggests: the processor is operable to withhold the high resolution images from transmission through the wired communication path, the processor is operable to transfer nearly immediately the low-resolution images through the wireless communication path and the processor is operable to store the high-resolution images to the memory until the wired communication path is active, and the processor is operable to transmit the high-resolution images through the wired communication path upon activation of the wired communication path. 4
ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 14, 20, and 22 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as Being Unpatentable over Polichar '478 and Homiller The Appellants contend that Homiller fails to describe the temporal/timing limitations of independent claims 1 and 14. App. Br. 13-18. The Appellants specifically contend that independent claims 1 and 14 require to transfer nearly immediately the low resolution images through the wireless communication path and store the high resolution images to the memory until the wired communication path is active and Homiller fails to specifically describe these temporal limitations. Id. We agree with the Appellants. Homiller indeed describes low resolution multimedia data and the combination of low resolution image data and supplemental data creates high resolution image data. Homiller 0004. Homiller further describes that the low resolution data is wirelessly transferred and the supplemental data is transferred through a wired connection. Homiller 0031 and Fig. 9. However, we find no evidence on the record that the low resolution image data is transferred nearly immediately and the high resolution data is stored in memory until the wired connection is active. The Examiner finds that the high-resolution multimedia content 330 (low-resolution multimedia data 220 combined with supplemental data 230) provides to the processor 930 from the wired device 960 resulting in the lowresolution multimedia data 220 being played (transmitted) to the transducer 340 at the wireless user device 940 meaning that the processor 930 is withholding high-resolution multimedia content 330 from being played (transmitted) at the transducer 340 from the wired device 960. 5
Ans. 21-22. However, we do not agree that the playing of the low resolution multimedia content must result in the withholding of high resolution multimedia content. Absent any further rationale or evidence from the Examiner, we do not sustain the Examiner s rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, and dependent claims 2-4, 20, and 22. Claims 5-13, 15-19, 21, and 23 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as Being Unpatentable over the Cited Prior Art The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-13, 15-19, 21, and 23 for the same reasons discussed in support of claims 1 and 14. App. Br. 19-23. We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants contentions with respect to claims 1 and 14 were found to be persuasive supra and are persuasive here for the same reasons. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5-13, 15-19, 21, and 23. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-23. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows. The rejection of claims 1-23 is not sustained. REVERSED 6
tj 7