Ex Parte OTA

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 8, 2019

14167750 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/167,750 01/29/2014 Kazushi OTA 1933 7590 03/12/2019 HOLTZ, HOLTZ & VOLEK PC 630 Ninth A venue Suite 1010 NEW YORK, NY 10036-3744 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. 14008 1025 EXAMINER ROZANSKI, MICHAEL T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/12/2019 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): USPTO@HHPATENT.COM pair_hhgc@cpaglobal.com rlevinsohn@hhpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUSHI OT A Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 Technology Center 3700 Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Konica Minolta, Inc. is the Applicant and real-party-in-interest. Br. 2. Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention relates to operator displays for an ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus which outputs a transmitting ultrasound to a test subject, obtains a receiving signal by receiving a reflecting ultrasound from the test subject, generates ultrasound image data based on the obtained receiving signal, and displays an ultrasound image on a display screen of a display based on the ultrasound image data, the ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus comprising: a touch panel provided overlapped on the display screen of the display; and a processor which executes a vertical display mode to display two vertical ultrasound display regions in which two ultrasound images are respectively aligned vertically on the display screen of the display and a horizontal display mode to display two horizontal ultrasound display regions in which two ultrasound images are respectively aligned horizontally on the display screen of the display, wherein in the vertical display mode, the processor sets an upper side operation reception region and a lower side operation reception region aligned vertically on the touch panel, and when the processor detects an operation of touching the upper side operation reception region, the processor sets an ultrasound image displayed on an upper side to a selected state and displays an ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the upper side to contain a mark to indicate that the ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the upper side contains an ultrasound image in the selected state, and when the processor detects an operation of touching the lower side operation reception region, the processor sets an ultrasound image displayed on a lower side to the selected state and displays an ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the lower side to contain the mark to indicate that the ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image 2 Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 displayed on the lower side contains an ultrasound image in the selected state; wherein in the horizontal display mode, the processor sets a left side operation reception region and a right side operation reception region aligned horizontally on the touch panel, and when the processor detects an operation of touching the left side operation reception region, the processor sets an ultrasound image displayed on a left side to the selected state and displays an ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the left side to contain the mark to indicate that the ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the left side contains an ultrasound image in the selected state, and when the processor detects an operation of touching the right side operation reception region, the processor sets an ultrasound image displayed on a right side to the selected state and displays an ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the right side to contain the mark to indicate that the ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image displayed on the right side contains an ultrasound image in the selected state; wherein in the vertical display mode the upper side operation reception region and the lower side operation reception region are displayed in a region of the touch panel so as not to overlap with the two vertical ultrasound display regions, and in the horizontal display mode the left side operation reception region and the right side operation reception region are displayed in a region of the touch panel so as not to overlap with the two horizontal ultrasound display regions. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Roundhill Kim Kato Chiang US 6,951,543 B2 US 8,517,946 B2 US 2014/0024939 Al US 2014/0114190 Al 3 Oct. 4, 2005 Aug.27,2013 Jan.23,2014 Apr. 24, 2014 Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 The following rejections are before us for review: 2 1. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Roundhill, and Kato. 3 2. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Roundhill, Kato, and Chiang. Claim 1 OPINION Unpatentability of Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 14 over Kim, Roundhill, and Kato The Examiner finds that Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for: (1) the "setting to a selected state" and "mark" limitations for which the Examiner relies on Roundhill; and (2) the "not to overlap" limitation for which the Examiner relies on Kato. Final Action 3-5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set an image to a selected state via a touchscreen. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to permit quick system set up. Id. at 4. The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to create a display with operation reception regions that do not overlap with ultrasound image display regions. Id. at 4--5. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to improve the operability of the device. Id. at 5. 2 A ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) has been withdrawn by the Examiner in response to an after-final claim amendment that is entered. Ans. 5. 3 Although the Examiner's rejection mentions claim 6, Appellant's Claims Appendix indicates that claim 6 is cancelled. Claims App. 4 Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 Appellant argues, among other things, that Roundhill fails to disclose a selected state indicator "mark" as claimed. Br. 12. In response, the Examiner states that the set of "dashes" that appear on the right sight of Roundhill Figure 4 are interpreted as "marks." Ans. 7. In the alternative, the Examiner, for the first time in the Answer, takes the position that Kato discloses "marks" as claimed. Id. ( citing Kato ,r,r 63, 66, & 71 ). According to the Examiner: Id. Kato teaches that operation buttons can be displayed within image area 42 or in an area other than the diagnosis area (i.e. such as within the area of the image 1) only during the time of operation and can be displayed while a user is touching and has selected a particular image region. These buttons are considered to be 'marks', thereby meeting the claimed limitation. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the operation buttons displayed relative to a selected image are indeed 'marks' as they indicate that an image is in a selected state. Appellant's invention is an operator interface for an ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus. Spec. 1. The invention seeks to overcome problems that exist in the art associated with operating the apparatus in a dual screen display mode. Id. at 2. Thus, the invention seeks to enable an operator to operate the apparatus intuitively while devoting less surface area to operator control keys. Id. at 2-3. Where the dual display is set to the horizontal display mode of the dual screen display mode, the image display region Ul is divided in half between a left side display region Ul 1 and a right side display region U12. Spec. 30. In the horizontal display mode, either left side display region Ul 1 5 Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 or right side display region U12 is active or, in other words, operates in a "selected state." Id. The user is able to acknowledge the active display region by confirming the display position of the active mark M. For example, the moving image of the ultrasound image is displayed in the active display region and the ultrasound image is displayed fixed in the display region which is not active (non- active display region). The left side operation reception region is set in the position where the L button B6 is displayed and the right side operation reception region is set in the position where the R button B7 is displayed. When the operation of touching each operation reception region is received, the active display region is switched. In other words, when the L button B6 is touched, the left side display region Ul 1 becomes active, and when the R button B7 is touched, the right side display region U12 becomes active. Id. at 30-31. In the embodiment depicted in Appellant's Figure 6, the active mark "M" appears as a relatively thick horizontal line toward the top of display region Ul 1. Thus, an operator viewing display region Ul can quickly and reliably determine that the left side display region Ul 1 is "active" or in the "selected state." See Fig. 6. The embodiment of Roundhill depicted in Figure 4 shows an upper, "first window" 50 with several thumbnail images 52---66 that are obtained using different settings for the same image data. Roundhill, Fig. 4, col. 4, 11. 4--17. Roundhill displays all of such thumbnail images adjacent each other in the same window 50. Id. Viewing screen 10 also includes a second window 80 that includes a full-size image 84 as well as other data displayed around the periphery of the image 84. The image 84 is obtained using the settings selected by selecting one or more of the thumbnail images 52-66. In other words, Roundhill displays a plurality of thumbnail images in a first window and a single, full-size image in a second window. Roundhill does 6 Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 not, however, display two full size images in a dual screen display mode where a first image is active in a selected state and the second image is not. The "dashes" that appear on the right side of window 80, contrary to the Examiner's findings, do not serve to distinguish between an active/selected state display image and an inactive/deselected display image in a dual screen display mode. Turning now to the Examiner's alternative findings regarding Kato allegedly meeting the "mark" limitation, as we note above, the Examiner's findings appear, for the very first time, in the Answer. Ans. 7. In the final rejection, the Examiner relies exclusively on Roundhill as disclosing the claimed mark. Id. We further note that the Examiner has not designated this new finding ofKato's alleged "mark" as a new ground ofrejection. 4 Under the circumstances, Appellant has not been given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to this newly cited evidence. Consequently, we will not consider the Examiner's newly raised findings regarding Kato' s alleged "mark" in reaching our Decision. In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's findings of fact regarding the Roundhill selected state 'mark" are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and, as a result, the Examiner's legal conclusion ofunpatentability is unfounded. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claim 1. 4 Although an Examiner's Answer may include a new ground of rejection, the Examiner must obtain the approval of the Director to furnish an answer that includes a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.39(a)(2). An Answer that relies on any evidence that is not relied on in the office action from which the appeal is taken, is deemed to be new ground of rejection. Id. 7 Appeal2018-005025 Application 14/167,750 Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14 Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14. Unpatentability of Claims 10-13 over Kim, Roundhill, Kato, and Chiang Claims 10-13 depend from claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1, which infirmity is not cured by the Examiner's reliance on the Chiang reference. Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-13. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-14 is reversed. REVERSED 8