Ex Parte Adam et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 201713272098 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation