Ex Parte Haider

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2012

10742283 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte BRUNO H. HAIDER __________ Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 Technology Center 3700 ___________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 2 SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17, which stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Spratt (US 6,023,968; Feb. 15, 2000) and Torp (US 6,618,493 B1; Sept. 9, 2003). We reverse. THE INVENTION According to Appellant, the probe of a conventional ultrasound imaging system includes an array of transducer elements, with each element (i) generating ultrasound in accord with a respective control signal and (ii) outputting a respective image signal in accord with the reflected ultrasound sensed by the element. (Spec. 1:19 – 2:14.) The array’s control signals can be phase adjusted (i.e., time delayed) and amplitude adjusted “to produce ultrasonic waves which combine to form a net ultrasonic wave that travels along a preferred vector direction and is focused at a selected point along the beam.” (Spec. 1:21-25.) Similarly, the array’s image signals can be phase adjusted and amplitude adjusted “so that the net [image] signal is indicative of the ultrasound reflected from a single focal point.” (Spec. 2:9-14.) The above signal adjustments are said to “beamform” a “transmit beam” and “receive beam” for imaging the region of interest. (Spec. 1:25 – 2:5; 2:17- 24; Abstract.) Appellant’s invention generates a “spatially diverging” transmit beam in order to quickly image the region of interest via “parallel receive beamforming.” (Spec. 15:24 – 16:20.) In Appellant’s words: Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 3 In parallel receive beamforming, a wider transmit beam is created and multiple receive beams are formed within the spatial extent of the wide transmit beam.… .… The result is that for every transmit, one can acquire N receive beams. If the transmit beam is wide enough to illuminate the entire target scene, then the image could be formed with a single transmit event.… …. …To have a very large number of parallel receive beams, a spatially diverging transmit beam is needed. This transmit beam can be created, e.g., by having a small transmit aperture (the beamwidth is inversely proportional to the aperture size)[.] In this case, the transmit delays should all be constant[.] Alternatively, a spherical delay pattern can be used to create a virtual focal point inside of the probe (normally the focus is in front of the probe). (Id.) Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis on the method’s step of transmitting “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beams.” 1. A method for ultrasonic flow parameter imaging comprising the following steps: transmitting a timed sequence of spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beams from a transducer array into a region of interest in a body at a pulse repetition frequency; converting ultrasound wave energy returned to said array into electronic signals; beamforming said electrical signals to simultaneously form a respective set of multiple receive beams following Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 4 transmission of each transmit beam, each set of receive beams consisting of multiple lines through respective spatial positions in the region of interest; calculating a respective mean velocity value for each receive beam; calculating a respective value of a given flow parameter for each receive beam, a respective set of flow parameter values being calculated from the respective set of mean velocity values; and displaying a respective visual value for each calculated flow parameter value in a spatial relationship that generally corresponds to the spatial relationship of said spatial positions in said body, thereby forming a respective flow parameter image. Independent claims 10 and 11 are similarly directed to systems with structures for transmitting “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beams.” Claims 2-9 and 12-17 respectively depend from claims 1 and 11. Thus, all of the pending claims recite a step or structure for transmitting “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beams.” CONTENTIONS As explained below, the Examiner and Appellant disagree upon the meaning and scope of a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” as claimed. The Examiner finds that the Specification “fail[s] to redefine ‘spatially divergent’ … to mean anything other than that which is commonly known in the art.” (Ans. 4.) However, without presenting the allegedly common meaning, the Examiner further finds that Torp teaches a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” by way of “using a relatively broad Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 5 transmit beam.” (Ans. 4 (quoting Torp, col. 3, l. 19).) The Examiner adds that “all ultrasonic beams are mechanical waves which are ‘spatially divergent’ in that they … diverge in non-vacuum space.” (Ans. 4.) Appellant responds that the Examiner has failed to construe the claimed “spatially diverging” language in view of the Specification. According to Appellant, a “‘spatially divergent beam’ as has been defined in the current application … is a multiplicity of spatially diverging pulses transmitted by a transducer array and generated without beamforming.” (Reply Br. 4.) ISSUE Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Torp’s “broad” transmit beam, noted above, constitutes a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 11? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s argument insofar that the Specification does not show a clear intent to restrict a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” to a net ultrasonic wave generated without transmit beamforming. See Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]bsent a clear disclaimer in the specification, the embodiments in the specification do not limit broader claim language.” (citation omitted)). And to the contrary, the Specification describes a spatially diverging transmit beam that is beamformed so as to interleave with other spatially diverging transmit beams. (Spec. 19:11 – 20:6.) Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 6 On the other hand, though the Specification does not restrict a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” to the meaning asserted by Appellant, that is not to say the “spatially diverging” language fails to restrict the claim scope (as implied by the Examiner in finding that all ultrasonic beams are spatially divergent). According to the Specification, a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” is achieved (i) by, in part, setting the transmit delays of a probe’s transducer array elements to a constant value or (ii) by varying those transmit delays so as to form a virtual focal point behind the probe’s transducer array. (Spec. 16:13-23.) Because such transmit delays are varied to transmit beamform (Spec. 1:21-25), we find the first option of setting the transmit delays to a constant value generates a net ultrasonic wave that is not beamformed (as argued by Appellant). And for the same reason, we find the second option of varying the transmit delays to form a focal point generates a net ultrasonic wave that is beamformed, particularly so as to illuminate a spatial extent wider than the transducer array (given the focal point’s position behind the array). We construe the claimed “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” as encompassing only these net ultrasonic waves of options (i) and (ii). As noted infra, the Examiner finds that Torp’s cited transmit beam constitutes a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” by way of merely being broad. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner has not addressed whether Torp’s cited transmit beam constitutes a “spatially diverging ultrasonic transmit beam” as construed above. In light of this error, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17. . Appeal 2009-013167 Application 10/742,283 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 is reversed. REVERSED peb