Ex Parte Halmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

14015252 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
14/015,252 08/30/2013 Menachem Hal man n 121541-6 (13491US04) 4638
23446 7590 08/24/2017
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
BRUTUS, JOEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MENACHEM HALMANN and SHINICHI AMEMIYA
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
Technology Center 3700
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and RYAN H. FLAX,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method and system for ultrasound imaging. The Examiner rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-
in-part.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as GE Medical Systems
Global Technology Company, LLC (see App. Br. 2).
2 This Appeal is related to Appeals 2011-012702 (US 11/044,401)
and 2016-004371 (US 14/274,122).
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
Statement of the Case
Background
“Traditional ultrasound systems are often large and bulky and do not
lend themselves for ease of portability and tend to be expensive” (Spec. 14).
“A need exists for a small, inexpensive, highly portable ultrasound system
employing existing technology that may be used quickly and easily for basic
diagnosis in emergency situations” (Spec. 1 8).
The Claims
Claims 53—82 are on appeal. Independent claims 53 and 67 are
representative and read as follows:
53. A method of ultrasound imaging, said method
comprising:
receiving ultrasound signals of a region of interest
with a hand-held probe assembly;
generating a plurality of received digital signals based
on said ultrasound signals within said hand-held probe
assembly;
transmitting said plurality of received digital signals
to an off-the-shelf commercially available hand-held device
having a display;
digitally beamforming said plurality of received
digital signals within said handheld device to generate at
least one beam of digital data corresponding to said region
of interest; and
creating and displaying an ultrasound image on said
display of said hand-held device.
67. A system for performing ultrasound imaging, said
system comprising:
a hand-held probe assembly comprising:
a signal processing module configured to perform
ultrasound signal processing, and
a transducer head attached to said signal processing
module; and
2
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
an off-the-shelf commercially available hand-held
device comprising a display, said hand-held device
connected to said hand-held probe assembly, wherein said
handheld device is configured to perform ultrasound data
processing functions comprising digital beamforming, and
wherein said hand-held device is configured to create and
display ultrasound images on said display.
The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 53 and 67 under 35U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph (Ans. 2).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 53, 55, 56, 58, 60-63, 65—67, 69—71,
75, 76, and 78—82 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle3 (Ans. 3—6).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 57, 59, 64, 73, and 77 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ogle and Chiang4 (Ans. 7—8).
D. The Examiner rejected claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Ogle, Chiang, and Kent5 (Ans. 8—9).
E. The Examiner rejected claims 54, 68, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Ogle and Brock-Fisher6 (Ans. 9—10).
3 Ogle et al., US 5,817,024, issued Oct. 6, 1998.
4 Chiang et al., US 6,106,472, issued Aug. 22, 2000.
5 Kent, US 2003/0164820 Al, published Sept. 4, 2003.
6 Brock-Fisher, US 6,497,661 Bl, issued Dec. 24, 2002.
3
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
A. 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph1
The Examiner finds:
The term “off-the-shelf commercially available” in
claims 53 and 67 is a relative term which renders the claim
indefinite. The term “off-the-shelf commercially available” is
not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a
standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the invention, the term “off-the-shelf commercially
available” does not specifically set the bounds of off-the-shelf.
(Ans. 2).
Appellants contend “the term ‘off-the-shelf commercially available’
restricts the scope of the claimed ‘hand-held device’ to a hand-held device
that is non-custom and non-specialized (i.e., ‘off-the-shelf), and available to
the general public (i.e., ‘commercially available’), such as a PDA or Pocket-
PC” (App. Br. 12).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the term “off-the-shelf
commercially available hand-held device” is indefinite?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches: “Certain embodiments of the present
invention afford an approach to interface a standard, off-the-shelf,
inexpensive PDA device to a hand-held ultrasound probe assembly to
provide ultrasound scanning capability that is highly portable and
affordable” (Spec. 111).
7 We note, for the Examiner, that when an independent claim is indefinite,
typically the dependent claims are also rejected as indefinite, unless they
clarify the ambiguity. We leave it to the Examiner to address this issue.
4
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
Principles of Law
“[Djuring patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Analysis
We find that the Examiner has the better position. The only “off-the-
shelf commercially available hand-held device” described by the
Specification is a personal digital assistant (PDA) (FF 1). We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ attempt to introduce limitations such as “non­
custom,” “non-specialized,” and “available to the general public” based
solely on the term “off-the-shelf commercially available” because the claim
term does not, on its face, exclude customized, specialized or limited access
products. For example, a device on a pharmacist’s shelf is “off the shelf’
and “commercially available,” but is not available to the general public
without a prescription. Alternatively, a specialized tool with a display may
be available to the general public at a home improvement or specialty tool
store, but remain “specialized” or even “customized” for specific
professional uses. Based on Appellants’ definition and arguments, it is
unclear if such a prescription device or specialized tool satisfies the
requirements of the term at issue.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that “off the shelf
commercially available” “does not define any structure and is subjective
based on sales/marketing decisions” and does not “inform the public of the
particular limitations that would be infringed upon.” (Ans. 11).
We do not find Appellants’ citation to the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (App. Br. 13) persuasive because the Specification does not rely
5
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
upon Appellants’ cited definition and other ordinary definitions of the terms
do not support Appellants’ position.8
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
term “off-the-shelf commercially available hand-held device” is indefinite.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ogle
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Ogle teaches and/or suggests
the limitations of claims 53 and 67?
Findings of Fact
2. Figure 1 of Ogle is reproduced below:
FIG. 1
8 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/off-the-shelf (“available
as a stock item.”).
6
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
Figure 1 illustrates the “architecture of a hand-held ultrasound systen ... A
transducer array 10 is used . . . Echoes received by the transmit/receive
ASIC 20 are provided to the adjacent front end ASIC 30, which digitizes and
beamforms the echoes from the individual transducer elements into coherent
scanline signals” (Ogle 2:40-65).
3. Figure 6 of Ogle is reproduced below:
A block diagram of the front end ASIC 30 is shown in FIG.
6. . . . Each echo signal output is coupled to the input of an
A/D converter 310, where the echo signals are converted to
digital data. . . . The digital data from the A/D converter for
each element... is shifted into a first in, first out (FIFO)
register 312 by a clock signal.... The delayed echo signals
from the FIFO register 312 are coupled to a multiplier 316
where the echo signals are weighted by dynamic weight values
provided by a dynamic weight controller 318. . . . The delayed
7
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
and weighted echo signals are then summed with appropriately
delayed and weighted echo signals from other elements and
echo signals from any other delay stages which are coupled in
cascade through a summer 320. The beamformed echo signals,
together with synchronous overflow bits, are produced as
output scanline data on an RF data bus.
(Ogle 7:1—41).
4. Ogle teaches:
Other system packaging configurations will be readily apparent.
For instance, the front end ASIC 30, the digital signal
processing ASIC 40, and the back end ASIC 50 could be
located in a common enclosure, with the beamformer of the
front end ASIC connectable to different array transducers. This
would enable different transducers to be used with the digital
beamformer, digital filter, and image processor for different
diagnostic imaging procedures. A display could be located in
the same enclosure as the three ASICS, or the output of the
back end ASIC could be connected to a separate display device.
(Ogle 4:45-55).
5. Ogle teaches a “diagnostic ultrasound instrument. . . The
instrument can be produced as a single unit or, in a preferred embodiment,
the instrument is a two-part unit, one including a transducer, beamformer,
and image processor and the other including a display and power source for
both units” (Ogle 1:44-48).
6. Ogle teaches the “front end ASIC 30 also controls the transmit
waveform timing, aperture and focusing of the ultrasound beam through
control signals provided for the transmit/receive ASIC. In the illustrated
embodiment the front end ASIC 30 provides timing signals for the other
ASICs and time gain control” (Ogle 2:65 to 3:3).
8
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
7. Ogle teaches “a serial bus from the beam former” (Ogle 5:42—
43) and teaches “a parallel to serial conversion of the control data” (Ogle
11:38-39).
8. Ogle teaches: “Power for the hand-held ultrasound system in a
preferred embodiment is provided by a rechargeable battery” (Ogle 3:54—55)
and that the “upper section 83 includes an LCD display 82 and a battery
pack 88” (Ogle 4:34—35).
Principles of Law
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “‘each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.”’ In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743,
745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
Claim interpretation
We begin with claim interpretation because before a claim is properly
interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. Claims 53 and 67
broadly recite an “off-the-shelf commercially available hand-held device”
but impose no structural limitations that distinguish such a device from any
commercially available device, as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection
above. Therefore, for purposes of the prior art, we interpret the term broadly
to encompass any prior art device that would be capable of being for sale
(i.e. “commercially available”).
9
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
Claims 53 and 67
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 3—6; FF 2—6) and agree that claims
53 and 67 are obvious over Ogle. We need not address the anticipation
rejection because no secondary considerations have been presented by
Appellants that would overcome the obviousness rejection. We address
Appellants’ arguments below.
Appellants contend “Ogle fails to disclose an off-the-shelf
commercially available hand-held device. Instead, Ogle teaches ‘a fully
integrated hand held ultrasonic diagnostic instrument,’ which is a specialized
handheld ultrasonic instrument that is not available to the general public”
(App. Br. 17). Appellants contend: “Because the device of Ogle is not a
standard, non-custom, non-specialized, hand-held device available to the
general public, Ogle’s fully integrated hand-held ultrasonic diagnostic
instrument fails to disclose the claimed ‘off-the-shelf commercially available
hand-held device’” {id. at 19).
We find these arguments unpersuasive. As already discussed, the
term “off-the-shelf commercially available” is not reasonably interpreted as
imposing a requirement that the product is unavailable to the general public,
only that it is available for sale. Ogle clearly contemplates a product that is
commercially available to a relevant market (FF 6) and the ordinary artisan
would have found it obvious “to have the device ready for sale” (Ans. 4),
that is, “off-the-shelf,” so a customer may purchase the device as desired.
Appellants contend “the instrument of Ogle is made up of Application
Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), which are specialized hardware
10
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
components, not general purpose ‘off the shelf components as claimed”
(App. Br. 18).
We find this argument unpersuasive. Claims 53 and 67 lack any
requirement that the subcomponents that make up the ultrasound device are
themselves “off-the-shelf’ elements. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (“[AJppellanf s arguments fail from the outset because . . .
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims”). Indeed, the PDA
devices referred to by Appellants in the Specification (FF 1) and in their
arguments (see App. Br. 12) reasonably contain elements that are not “off-
the-shelf’ for general consumers as argued by Appellants.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s “conclusory allegations are
similar to those presented during Appeal 2011-012702 of the parent
Application Serial No. 11/044,401” (App. Br. 20).
We do not find this comparison persuasive because the claims in
Appeal 2011-012702 recited an “off-the-shelf commercially available
personal digital assistant” (see Appeal 2011-012702 at 2) and were not
broadly drawn to any “off-the-shelf commercially available hand-held
device” as in claims 53 and 67. The instant claims 53 and 67 are not limited
to a personal digital assistant as the hand-held device, but are broadly open
to any hand-held device that may be stocked and commercially sold to a
buyer.
Appellants contend:
Ogle’s front end ASIC 30 includes an analog-to-digital
converter, as shown in FIG. 1. In other words, any signals
transmitted from the transducer 10 and transmit/receive ASIC
20 to the front end beamformer ASIC 30 are in analog format
(i.e., not digital signals). Furthermore, in the hypothetical
embodiment, Ogle fails to disclose “a signal processing module
11
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
configured to perform ultrasound signal processing” in the
hand-held probe assembly.
(App. Br. 23). Appellants further contend
nowhere in Ogle is there any disclosure of generating a plurality
of received digital signals in a hand-held probe assembly,
transmitting the digital signals to an off-the-shelf commercially
available hand-held device, and performing digital
beamforming at the off-the-shelf commercially available hand­
held device that is separate and distinct from the hand-held
probe assembly comprising a detachable transducer head
attached to a signal processing module.
(App. Br. 24).
We find this argument unpersuasive because claims 53 and 67 do not
require the probe assembly and hand-held device to be physically separate
devices9 and Ogle suggests an integrated single device (FF 5). Therefore,
Appellants’ recognition that Ogle uses analog signals between ASIC 20 and
beamformer 30 does not distinguish an integrated device of Ogle’s because
Ogle teaches that ASIC 30 “digitizes and beamforms the echoes” (FF 2).
More specifically, figure 6 of Ogle discloses that the analog signals
are transmitted to the analog/digital converter 310 from ASIC 20, and then
the digital output from A/D converter 310 is beamformed by elements 312,
316, 318, and 320 and then the “beamformed echo signals, together with
synchronous overflow bits, are produced as output scanline data on an RF
data bus” (FF 3).
9 We note that in related Appeal 2016-004371, the claims require a
“detachable transducer head” with the probe assembly, which we interpreted
as imposing a requirement that the probe assembly and display assembly
were physically separate.
12
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
Consequently, Ogle teaches a step of generating digital signals using
A/D converter 310 and transmitting those signals within the device to
beamforming components that digitally beamform the signals ultimately
followed by displaying the signals on the hand-held device (FF 1,3,4).
Claim 58
Appellant contends that “Ogle’s teaching of processing ultrasound
image data at ASICs for display at a display device does not disclose
‘comprising transmitting digital control signals from said hand-held device
to said hand-held probe assembly,’ as recited in Appellant’s dependent claim
58” (App. Br. 26).
The Examiner responds that Ogle teaches “transmitting control signals
from the handheld device to said handheld probe assembly” (Ans. 17).
We find the Examiner has the better position because Ogle teaches the
“front end ASIC 30 also controls the transmit waveform timing, aperture and
focusing of the ultrasound beam through control signals” (FF 6). These
signals control the beamform analysis and therefore satisfy the requirements
of claim 58.
Claims 60, 61, 75, and 76
Appellants contend
the digital signals referred to in claims 60 and 61 are the digital
signals generated based on the ultrasound data within the hand­
held probe assembly and transmitted to the off-the-shelf
commercially available hand-held device as set forth in
independent claim 53. Moreover, with regard to dependent
claims 75 and 76, the claims set forth the connection between
the hand-held device and the hand-held probe assembly being
over a standard digital interface. In contrast, the cited section
of Ogle describes the loading of control data in the
transmit/receive ASIC 20 from external RAM 32, which is
13
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
unrelated to serial or parallel links used in digital signal
transmissions between the hand-held device and the hand-held
probe assembly.
(App. Br. 26—27).
We are not persuaded. Claims 60 and 75 and claims 61 and 76 are
drawn to transmitting signals over serial or parallel links, respectively. Ogle
evidences that the ordinary artisan would have been aware of both serial and
parallel data transmission (FF 7) and the Examiner reasonably relies upon
these teachings (see Ans. 5) to find the use of standard transmission
techniques as obvious known equivalents. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability.”). Appellants do not establish any secondary
considerations for these elements.
Claims 62 and 63
Appellants contend that “regarding dependent claims 62 and 63, the
Appellants note] that such claims depend from claim 57, which the Office
Action acknowledges is not taught by Ogle” (App. Br. 27—28).
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner did not
include claim 57 in the rejection over Ogle alone (see Ans. 3). The
Examiner does not provide reasoning in this rejection as to why the
limitations of claim 57, necessarily included in claims 62 and 63 because
dependent claims include all of the limitations of the claim from which they
depend, would have been obvious. We therefore reverse this rejection.
Claims 70 and 71
Appellants contend “Ogle’s transmit/receive ASIC 20 routes the
received analog signals to the Front End (FE) beamforming ASIC 30, not a
14
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
signal processing module of a hand-held probe assembly that is separate and
distinct from a beamformer in a separate hand-held device” (App. Br. 28).
We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons already given.
Ogle teaches that both the probe assembly and hand-held device may be
integrated into a single device that would contain all of the required
elements (FF 5). Appellants provide no specific argument that the integrated
device would lack any element recited in the claim.
Claim 81
Appellants contend “Ogle cannot teach ‘wherein said hand-held probe
assembly comprises an internal battery to power said hand-held probe
assembly,’ as recited in Appellants’] dependent claim 81” (App. Br. 29).
We find this argument unpersuasive. Even if the use of an internal
battery was a nonobvious advance by Appellants, Ogle specifically teaches:
“Power for the hand-held ultrasound system in a preferred embodiment is
provided by a rechargeable battery” and exemplifies the use of an internal
battery in upper section 83 (FF 8). The ordinary artisan would have,
therefore, found it obvious to use an internal rechargeable battery. We note
that we are affirming the obviousness rejection, and Ogle clearly renders the
use of an internal battery obvious (see FF 8).
Conclusions of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Ogle
suggests the limitations of claims 53, 58, 60, 61, 67, 70, 71, 75, 76 and 81.
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Ogle teaches and/or suggests the limitations of claims 62 and 63.
15
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ogle and Chiang
Claims 57 and 73
Appellants contend
the Office Action alleges that Ogle discloses performing digital
beamforming, parameter estimation, scan conversion, and
display processing at the off-the-shelf commercially available
hand-held device. However, to the extent that any of such
processing is performed in Ogle (which the Appellant does not
concede), the Office Action has acknowledged that it occurs at
the transducer unit of a two-part unit, not the display unit.
Chiang does not even disclose performing digital beamforming
at its display device 14. Instead, Chiang teaches analog
beamforming 26 at its scan unit 12. Accordingly, Chiang fails
to remedy the deficiencies of Ogle. For at least these additional
reasons, Ogle in view of Chiang fails to disclose the limitations
of Appellant’s dependent claims 57 and 73.
(App. Br. 30).
We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons given above.
Briefly, Ogle renders a single, integrated unit obvious, and consequently,
Ogle renders obvious performance of the various data manipulations within
that single integrated unit consistent with the claim requirements including
digital beamforming (FF 3,5). Appellants provide no reasons why the
combination with Chiang would have been unobvious.
Claim 64
Appellants contend Chiang’s “multiple window display formats are
not and do not disclose running WINDOWS applications on a hand-held
device” (App. Br. 31).
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. We also find no teaching
of a “WINDOWS” application in either Ogle or Chiang, only the use of
display windows (see Chiang 30:30-48). We agree with Appellants that the
16
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
ordinary artisan would interpret the word “Windows” in claim 64 in light of
the teaching in the Specification that the “PDA runs Windows applications”
(Spec. 19) as referring to Microsoft® Windows, and not to any application
with a display window.
Claims 59 and 77
Appellants contend “Chiang’s wireless transmission capability is not,
however, between its scan head 12 and display unit 14. Instead, Chiang
teaches that ultrasound data is transmitted to display unit 14 from scan head
12 via cable 16. Consequently, Chiang fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Ogle” (App. Br. 31-32).
We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner relies upon
Chiang to demonstrate that wireless transmission is a known alternative to
transmission by cable or wire (see Chiang 15:2—4: “The transmission
channel can be a modem or wireless cellular communication channel or
other known communication means.”) See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability.”) Appellants provide no reason why this substitution
is anything other than a known, predictable and obvious variation.
D. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ogle, Chiang, and Kent
Appellants contend “the Office Action alleges that ‘a folder module is
inherently disclosed in order to fold acoustic paths and the amplifier and the
inherent folder are connected because in signal processing the signals are
transmitted (pass down, emphasis added)’” (App. Br. 33). Appellants
contend “neither Kent itself nor the Office Action ‘make[s] clear that the
17
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
missing descriptive matter,’ said to be inherent ‘is necessarily present in’
Kent” (id.).
The Examiner responds that “a folder is inherently disclosed in order
to fold acoustic paths (which is taught by Kent) and the amplifier and the
inherent folder are connected because in signal processing the signals are
transmitted” (Ans. 19).
We find that Appellants have the better position because the Examiner
does not explain why Kent establishes that the folder is inherently disclosed
as folding acoustic paths. The Specification teaches: “The folder module 50
amplifies and weights the received signals and collapses the original 16
received signals into 8 received signals due to the symmetry of the
transducer elements about the received beam to be formed” (Spec. 129).
The Examiner does not clearly explain or establish why the cited
portions of Kent necessarily perform the folder functions disclosed in the
Specification of amplifying or weighting the signals or collapsing the signals
(see Kent || 9, 282). While paragraph 282 discusses an amplifier, the
Examiner does not identify a specific teaching of weighting or collapsing the
signals or evidence that the disclosed process constitutes a “folder” as
required by claim 72 and explained by the Specification (see Spec. 129).
18
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
E. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ogle and Brock-Fisher
Claims 54 and 68
The Examiner finds it obvious “to combine [Ogle] et al[.] and Brock-
Fisher by having the hand-held device as a laptop; because it can be carried
and used anywhere such as in a plane, a train” (Ans. 10).
Appellants contend “Brock-Fisher teaches a portable device capable
of acquiring and transmitting diagnostic data to a person at another location
to analyze. Nowhere in Brock-Fisher is there any disclosure of its portable
device performing digital beamforming and having a display that displays an
ultrasound image” (App. Br. 35).
We find that Appellants have the better position. We found claims 53
and 67 obvious because we interpreted these claims to encompass a single
device embodiment where the digital signals were transmitted within a
single device as disclosed by Ogle. However, if Ogle’s embodiment using
two separate devices is relied upon, as in Figure 4, then Ogle does not
disclose transmitting the digital signals between the devices, but rather
transmits analog signals. Because the use of a PDA would reasonably fall
within the Ogle embodiment of Figure 4, we find that the Examiner has not
explained why it would have been obvious to modify Ogle with a PDA in
the place of the display and power source components, but move the
beamforming function into the PDA that contains the display (see FF 5).
Claim 74
Appellants contend “Brock-Fisher does not teach that the touch-screen
displays an ultrasound image. Instead, Brock-Fisher teaches that the
portable ultrasound diagnostic device 10 acquires and transmits diagnostic
19
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
data to a person at another location to analyze. Consequently, Brock-Fisher
fails to remedy the deficiencies of Ogle” (App. Br. 36).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Ogle teaches the use of an
LCD screen (FF 2) and Brock-Fisher teaches “a hand-held personal
computer (H/PC) having an LCD touch screen” (Brock-Fisher 2:64—65).
We agree with the Examiner that this known equivalent would have been
obvious because “touch screens also increase the speed of tasks; touch
screens allow users to select icons directly, without worrying about
translating horizontal mouse movement to a vertical screen” (Ans. 10).
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 53 and 67 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the rejection of claims 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 65—67, 69-
71, 75, 76, and 78—82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle.
We reverse the rejection of claims 62 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Ogle.
We affirm the rejection of claims 57, 59, 73, and 77 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ogle and Chiang.
We reverse the rejection of claim 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ogle and Chiang.
We reverse the rejection of claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ogle, Chiang, and Kent.
20
Appeal 2016-005105
Application 14/015,252
We affirm the rejection of claim 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ogle and Brock-Fisher.
We reverse the rejection of claims 54 and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Ogle and Brock-Fisher.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
21