Ex Parte Denk et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 28, 2019

14495427 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/495,427 09/24/2014 23446 7590 04/01/2019 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stefan Denk 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 28268US01 (276160 UL) 8937 EXAMINER CWERN, JONATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 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): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEP AN DENK and DANIEL JOHN BUCKTON Appeal 2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 General Electric Company ("Appellant") is the Applicant and is identified as the real party in interest. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46; Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative, and reads: 1. A method, comprising: applying by a processor of an ultrasound system, gain optimization or correction in an automatic gain mode, the applying of the gain optimization or correction in the automatic gain mode comprises: determining optimal gain based on one or more input ultrasound images; determining based on the optimal gain, settings for a plurality of user controls of the ultrasound system, corresponding to the optimal gain, wherein the plurality of user controls are adjustable manually and automatically; and providing feedback to a user of the ultrasound system, wherein: the feedback relates to the settings for the plurality of user controls which correspond to the optimal gain; and providing the feedback comprises visually showing each of the plurality of user controls set at a position corresponding to the optimal gain as determined based on the one or more input ultrasound images. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Mo (US 6,102,859, issued Aug. 15, 2000) and Ng (US 2003/0187353 Al, published Oct. 2, 2003). 2 Appeal2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Mo, Ng, and Roncalez (US 2011/0043434 Al, published Feb. 24, 2011). ANALYSIS Obviousness over Mo and Ng (Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-21, and 23-28) Claim 1 recites a method comprising "applying by a processor of an ultrasound system, gain optimization or correction in an automatic gain mode" in which the "applying" comprises "determining optimal gain based on one or more input ultrasound images;" "determining based on the optimal gain, settings for a plurality of user controls of the ultrasound system, corresponding to the optimal gain;" and "providing feedback to a user of the ultrasound system," wherein "providing the feedback comprises visually showing each of the plurality of user controls set at a position corresponding to the optimal gain as determined based on the one or more input ultrasound images." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Claim 10 recites a system comprising "an ultrasound device that comprises a processor operable to apply gain optimization or correction in an automatic gain mode" in which the applying of the gain optimization or correction in the automatic gain mode comprises limitations similar to the steps recited in claim 1. Id. at 17- 18. Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having a stored computer program having at least one code section executable by a machine for causing the machine to perform steps similar to the steps recited in claim 1. Id. at 19. The Examiner finds that the combination of Mo and Ng discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Final Act. 3-5. Particularly, the 3 Appeal2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 Examiner finds that Mo discloses an apparatus and a method for automatic time and/ or lateral gain compensation in ultrasound imaging, comprising "providing feedback to a user of the ultrasound system, relating to the settings for the plurality of user controls which correspond to the optimal gain." Id. at 3 (citing Mo 2:5-15, 7:31--45). The Examiner explains that Mo describes displaying graphic data to the user on a monitor, where the graphic data indicates the magnitudes of the automatic gain adjustments and the corresponding relative positions in the image, and this graphic data can be provided in the form of TGC and LGC curves. Thus, the Examiner determines, feedback regarding the automatic optimal gain settings which similarly correspond to the manual user controls is provided to the user. Ans. 3 (citing Mo, col. 2, 11. 5-15, col. 7, 11. 31--45). The Examiner acknowledges that Mo does not disclose adjusting each of the user controls to a position corresponding to the settings recommended for the optimal gain in order to visually show the user controls set at a position corresponding to the optimal gain. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Ng discloses "adjusting each of the plurality of user controls to a position corresponding to the settings recommended for the optimal gain ( the ultrasound system assigns an optimal starting TGC characteristic, and a motor automatically moves the manual switches to the proper position corresponding to the optimally determined TGC[])." Id. (citing Ng ,r,r 16-17). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mo to adjust each of the plurality of user controls to a position corresponding to the settings recommended for the optimal gain, as taught by Ng, to "provide the user with the most realistic view ( visual feedback) of what the current TGC 4 Appeal2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 settings are, corresponding to the user controls, so that they may be further adjusted more easily and accurately if desired." Id. at 4--5. Appellant contends that the combination of Mo and Ng does not disclose the limitation "providing the feedback comprises visually showing each of the plurality of user controls set at a position corresponding to the optimal gain as determined based on the one or more input ultrasound images," as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). Appellant also contends that Mo does not provide feedback based on determined settings and, thus, there is no reason to modify Mo's method or apparatus to show positions of gain-related controls. Id. at 7-8. Appellant's contentions are persuasive. First, although the Examiner finds that Mo discloses "providing feedback to a user of the ultrasound system, relating to the settings for the plurality of user controls which correspond to the optimal gain" (Final Act. 3 ( citing Mo 7: 31--45) ( emphasis added)) in the form of "graphic data [that] can be provided in the form of TGC and LGC curves" (Ans. 3 (citing Mo 7:30--45)), each of claims 1, 10, and 19, however, recites that "the feedback comprises visually showing each of the plurality of user controls set at a position" rather than other forms of feedback (see Appeal Br. 16-19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added)). And, as stated by Appellant, "just because Mo describes providing graphic representations of the gain and/or gain adjustments (or related data) does not mean that Mo suggests providing visual feedback relating to the controls that would have resulted in the same gain or gain adjustments." Reply Br. 10. Second, each of claims 1, 10, and 19 recites "determining optimal gain based on one or more input ultrasound images" and "a position corresponding to the optimal gain as determined based on the one or more 5 Appeal2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 input ultrasound images." Appeal Br. 16-19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided a rational reason to modify Mo in the proposed manner. As Appellant points out, Ng discloses automatically moving switches 22 to a central line position 28 at the start of the operation of the system and before active imaging, that is, before an input ultrasound image is produced. Id. at 9--1 O; see also Ng, Fig. 2, ,r,r 16-17. Although Ng discloses automatically moving switches 22, switches 22 are moved to central line position 28 before active imaging and, thus, would not provide feedback to a user as to where switches 22 should be positioned for optimized imaging when viewing the ultrasound images. Ng's disclosure appears to go against the Examiner's reasoning of "provid[ing] the user with the most realistic view (visual feedback) of what the current TGC settings are, corresponding to the user controls, so that they may be further adjusted more easily and accurately if desired." Final Act. 4--5. Thus, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence and reasoning to support the modification of Mo, and the Examiner's rationale of modifying Mo's method and apparatus to ad just each of the plurality of user controls to a position as taught by Ng, lacks rational underpinning. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2-7, 11-16, 20, 21, and 23-28 as unpatentable over Mo and Ng. Obviousness over Mo, Ng, and Roncalez Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 22) The Examiner's reliance on Roncalez as disclosing virtual controls in rejecting dependent claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 22 fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of parent claims 1, 10, and 19. See Final Act. 5---6. Hence, 6 Appeal2018-006736 Application 14/495,427 we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 22 as unpatentable over Mo, Ng, and Roncalez. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. REVERSED 7