Ex Parte Adam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2017

13272098 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2017)

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.
13/272,098 10/12/2011 Sharon L. Adam 10622-707.201 8136
66854 7590 03/15/2017
SHAY TtT FNN T T P
EXAMINER
2755 CAMPUS DRIVE TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
SUITE 210
SAN MATEO, CA 94403 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2017 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):
info@ shayglenn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHARON L. ADAM, DAVID M. SMITH,
DONALD F. SPECHT, and KENNETH D. BREWER
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sharon L. Adam et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—9, and 11—17.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Maui Imaging, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2—3 and 10 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 9—10 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A multiple aperture ultrasound probe, comprising:
a probe housing containing a first ultrasound array of
transducer elements and a second ultrasound array of transducer
elements;
a flex/PC board comprising a plurality of signal and
ground terminals corresponding to the transducer elements of the
first and second ultrasound arrays;
a first flex circuit comprising a plurality of differential
pairs of signal and ground conductors, the first flex circuit being
configured to connect each transducer element of the first
ultrasound array to its corresponding signal and ground terminals
on the flex/PC board with one of the differential pairs of signal
and ground conductors of the first flex circuit;
a second flex circuit comprising a plurality of differential
pairs of signal and ground conductors, the second flex circuit
being configured to connect each transducer element of the
second ultrasound array to its corresponding signal and ground
terminals of the flex/PC board with one of the differential pairs
of signal and ground conductors of the second flex circuit;
first and second groups of coaxial cables comprising a
plurality of differential coaxial signal and ground conductors, the
groups of coaxial cables being configured to connect the signal
and ground terminals of the flex/PC board corresponding to the
transducer elements of the first and second ultrasound arrays to
an imaging controller with the differential coaxial signal and
ground conductors of the first and second groups of coaxial
cables; and
a backing plate configured to secure the first and second
ultrasound arrays in predetermined positions and orientations
relative to one another, the backing plate comprising a chassis
ground circuit separate from the ground conductors of the first
and second flex circuits and from the differential coaxial ground
conductors of the coaxial cables.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 11—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baumgartner (US 2004/0100163 Al, pub. May 27, 2004) and Stribling
(US 2009/0259128 Al, pub. Oct. 15, 2009);
Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Baumgartner, Stribling, and Abraham (US 2009/0036780 Al, pub. Feb. 5,
2009);
Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner,
Stribling, and Hashimoto (US 2009/0198134 Al, pub. Aug. 6, 2009);
Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner,
Stribling, and Chiang (US 2010/0174194 Al, pub. July 8, 2010); and
Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner,
Stribling, and Daft (US 2011/0021923 Al, pub. Jan. 27, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 11—16 over Baumgartner and Stribling
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner interprets the limitation “a flex/PC
board comprising a plurality of signal and ground terminals corresponding to
the transducer elements” not to require there be a separate and distinct
signal terminal and ground terminal for each transducer element. Final Act.
6.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s claim interpretation overlooks
the limitations of the first flex circuit and the second flex circuit recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. For example, with regard to the first flex circuit,
Appellants point out that claim 1 recites:
3
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
a first flex circuit comprising a plurality of differential
pairs of signal and ground conductors, the first flex circuit being
configured to connect each transducer element of the first
ultrasound array to its corresponding signal and ground
terminals on the flex/PC board with one of the differential pairs
of signal and ground conductors of the first flex circuit.
Id. Regarding the first flex circuit and the second flex circuit, Appellants
contend that the claim “defines a plurality of differential pairs of signal and
ground conductors, and requires that each transducer element is connected to
the flex/PC board with one of the differential pairs.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants assert that “Baumgartner does not teach a separate ground and
signal connection for each transducer element.” Id. As to the “first and
second groups of coaxial cables” also recited in claim 1, Appellants contend
that the claim further requires “differential coaxial signal and ground
conductors connecting each signal and ground terminal of the flex/PC board
to the imaging controller.” Id.
The Examiner answers that “[t]he disclosure that each transducer
element of an array is connected [to] its ‘corresponding’ signal and ground
terminals, does not require there to be an equal number of transducer
elements and ground and signal connection[s], only that the transducer
element corresponds to a signal and ground terminal.” Ans. 8—9 (emphasis
added). Appellants disagree, stating that “[cjlaim 1 requires that each
transducer element is connected to the flex/PC board with one of the
differential pairs of signal and ground conductors.” Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s claim construction does
not properly address all pertinent language of claim 1. The Examiner’s
statement that claim 1 requires “only that the transducer element
corresponds to a signal and ground terminal” is unclear. Ans. 8—9
4
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
(emphasis added). For example, the Examiner does not explain adequately
how this interpretation accounts for the further claim requirement that this
connection to the “corresponding signal and ground terminals” of the
flex/PC board is “with one of the differential pairs of signal and ground
conductors” of the first flex circuit and the second flex circuit.
Consequently, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is unclear, and thus,
untenable.
Regarding Baumgartner, the Examiner finds that Baumgartner
discloses the limitation “a plurality of signal and ground terminals
corresponding to the transducer elements.” Final Act. 6 (citing Baumgartner
12, 33). Appellants assert that these passages in Baumgartner do not
support this finding. Appeal Br. 4.
Paragraph 12 of Baumgartner describes background art that “allows
the electrical connection of ground electrodes on the front surface and signal
electrodes on the rear surface of the transducer element array to a flex circuit
on the back surface of the backing layer.” Baumgartner 112 (emphasis
added). However, claim 1 requires that each of the first flex circuit and the
second flex circuit comprises a plurality of differential pairs of signal and
ground conductors. We agree with Appellants that paragraph 12 “does not
disclose differential pairs of signal and ground conductors connecting to
each transducer element.” Appeal Br. 4.
Paragraph 33 of Baumgartner describes the transducer array shown in
Figure 1, including flex circuits 16 and transducer elements 12, as follows:
The rows of transducer elements are electrically connected
to respective flex circuits 16 via electrical conductors (not shown
in FIG. 1) embedded in and passing through the acoustic backing
layer 14 in the thickness direction. Each transducer element 12
5
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
in a given row is electrically connected to a respective conductive
trace (or conductive pad formed at the end of each conductive
trace) on the corresponding flex circuit. . . . Each conductive
trace (or a conductive pad at the end of the conductive trace) is
in electrical contact with the rearward termination of a respective
electrical conductor in the acoustic backing layer 14. Each
transducer element 12 has a signal electrode (not shown) on its
rear face that is in electrical contact with the forward
termination of the respective electrical conductor in the acoustic
backing layer.
Baumgartner 133 (emphasis added), Fig. 1. Based on this description and
Figure 1, each respective flex circuit 16 appears to be connected to a signal
electrode of a corresponding transducer element 12 via acoustic backing
layer 14. We agree with Appellants that paragraph 33 does not describe
“any ground connections between each transducer element and the flex
circuits.” Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner answers that Baumgartner discloses that each
transducer element has a signal electrode on a rear face and a ground
electrode on a forward face. Ans. 7 (citing Baumgartner 147).
Appellants reply that claim 1 calls for the flex circuits to include
differential pairs of signal and ground conductors, and Baumgartner does not
disclose such differential pairs of signal conductors and ground conductors
of flex circuits connecting each transducer element to the flex/PC board, as
claimed. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants also contend that Baumgartner does not disclose
differential coaxial signal conductors and ground conductors connecting the
flex/PC board to the imaging controller, as also recited in claim 1. Id. The
Examiner indicates that paragraphs 5, 32, and 33 of Baumgartner disclose
the limitations of claim 1 for the first and the second groups of coaxial
6
Appeal 2014-007705
Application 13/272,098
cables. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner does not specifically identify
any such disclosure in these paragraphs. Accordingly, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s findings with regard to Baumgartner are not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 4, 9, and 11—16 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Baumgartner and Stribling.
Claims 5 and 6 over Baumgartner, Stribling, and Abraham
Claim 7 over Baumgartner, Stribling, and Hashimoto
Claim 8 over Baumgartner, Stribling, and Chiang
Claim 17 over Baumgartner, Stribling, and Daft
Claims 5—8 and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 9—11 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s application of Abraham to reject
claims 5 and 6 (Final Act. 4—5), Hashimoto to reject claim 7 {id. at 5),
Chiang to reject claim 8 (id. at 5—6), and Daft to reject claim 17 (id. at 6)
does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we
also do not sustain these rejections for the same reasons as for claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—9, and 11—
17.
REVERSED
7