Ex Parte Pelissier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

12188191 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
12/188,191 08/07/2008 Laurent PELISSIER ANA1202-US 4519
(ULT-10-7506)
23266 7590 10/20/2017
DRIGGS, HOGG, DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., L.P.A.
38500 CHARDON ROAD
DEPT. DLBH
WILLOUGBY HILLS, OH 44094
EXAMINER
COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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):
usptocommunications@driggslaw.com
carole@driggslaw.com
mwheeler @ driggslaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENT PELISSIER, KRIS DICKIE, and
KWUN-KEAT CHAN1
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a hand­
held ultrasonic imaging device, which have been rejected as obvious. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses a “[h]and-held ultrasound unit 10 [that]
may be used in either hand.” (Spec. 115.) “Apparatus 10 has a control. . .
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Analogic Corporation.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
which permits an operator to select between a right-handed operational
mode and left-handed operational mode.” (Id. 116.) The Specification’s
Figures 2A and 2B are reproduced below:
to _ io _
'I
Figures 2A and 2B show the display of a hand-held ultrasound unit in
left-handed and right-handed modes. (Id. 1 5.)
In the embodiment illustrated in Figures 2A and 2B, there are
three controls 25A, 25B and 25C lined up along the edge of
display 14 closest to transducer 20. . . . In one embodiment, the
order of controls 25A, 25B and 25C is reversed upon switching
from the left-handed mode to the right-handed mode, as
illustrated in Figures 2A and 2B. This permits the operator to
comfortably use apparatus 10 in either hand.
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 9, and 11—26 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative
and reads as follows:
1. A hand-holdable ultrasonic imaging device comprising:
an elongate housing with a longitudinal axis, a first end
region and a second end region, which opposes the first end
region along the longitudinal axis;
a transducer array disposed at the first end region and
supported by the housing;
a display supported on the housing, wherein the display
concurrently displays an ultrasound image and a plurality of
touchscreen graphical user controls in a predetermined layout;
a mode selection control; and,
control circuits comprising a programmable data
processor in the housing, the control circuits configured to
FIG.2A FIG.2B
(Id. 116.)
2
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
control operation of the ultrasonic imaging device based at least
in part on a user input corresponding to a first function;
a first mode and a second mode, the mode selection
control is operable to switch the ultrasonic imaging device
between the first mode and the second mode;
wherein in the first mode the first function is assigned to
a first touchscreen graphical user control of the pluralities of
touchscreen graphical user controls, which are positioned on the
display at a first location, wherein the first location is between
the first end region and the displayed ultrasound image and in
the second mode the first function is assigned to a second
different touchscreen graphical user control of the plurality of
touchscreen graphical user controls, which are positioned on the
display at the same location between the displayed ultrasound
image and the first end region, wherein a spatial arrangement
and order of the plurality of touchscreen graphical user controls
is reversed between the first mode and the second mode; and
wherein the ultrasonic imaging device is configured to
switch the control to which the first function is assigned from
the first touchscreen graphical user control to the second
touchscreen graphical user control upon switching from the first
mode to the second mode and to switch the control to which the
first function is assigned from the second touchscreen graphical
user control to the first touchscreen graphical user control upon
switching from the second mode to the first mode.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 19, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based on Hwang,2 Davis,3 Goren,4 and Gilley5 (Final Action6 2);
2 Hwang et al., US 2004/0138564 Al, published July 15, 2004.
3 Davis et al., US 2004/0036680 Al, published Feb. 26, 2004.
4 Goren, US 7,190,351 Bl, issued Mar. 13, 2007.
5 Gilley et al., US 2008/0077881 Al, published Mar. 27, 2008.
6 Office Action mailed Sept. 30, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Hwang, Davis, Goren, Gilley, and Franttila7 (Final Action 6);
Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Hwang,
Davis, Goren, Gilley, and Jones8 (Final Action 7);
Claims 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Hwang, Davis, Goren, Gilley, and Pallakoff9 (Final Action 8);
Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Hwang,
Davis, Goren, Gilley, Pallakoff, and Grunwald10 (Final Action 10); and
Claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based
on Hwang, Davis, Goren, Gilley, and Grunwald (Final Action 11).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1—3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 19, 21, and 24
as obvious based on Hwang, Davis, Goren, and Gilley. The Examiner has
rejected the remaining claims on appeal as obvious based on the same
references, combined with one or more of Franttila, Jones, Pallakoff, and
Grunwald. The same issue is dispositive for all of the rejections.
The Examiner finds that Hwang discloses a handheld ultrasound
imaging device that includes much of the hardware recited in claim 1, but
does not disclose that its device “includes a touch screen display including
touch screen icons/buttons which may change position(s) depending on the
orientation of the handheld ultrasound probe.” (Ans. 3.)
7 Franttila, US 2006/0022953 Al, published Feb. 2, 2006.
8 Jones et al., US 2004/0167402 Al, published Aug. 26, 2004.
9 Pallakoff, US 2009/0303187 Al, published Dec. 10, 2009.
10 Grunwald et al., US 7,022,075 B2, issued Apr. 4, 2006.
4
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
The Examiner finds that Davis discloses handheld devices that include
“a touch screen display that may be oriented in a portrait mode, a left handed
landscape mode or a right handed landscape mode.” {Id.) The Examiner
finds that Davis’ touch screen “includes a movable ‘active input area’
comprising, at least in some embodiments, active icons positioned at
locations within the active input area.” {Id. at 3 4.)
The Examiner finds that Goren teaches “with respect to handheld
devices (Abstract) [that] touch screen controls may be arranged in various
patterns (e.g. horizontal/vertical rows).” {Id. at 4.) The Examiner finds that
the various embodiments depicted by Davis appear to read on the
first and second modes now claimed where a first control
assigned to a first function at a first location is reversed when the
hand held device is switched from the left handed landscape
mode to the right handed landscape mode or vice versa. That is
to say, it appears active icons would follow the well-known
“positive Y” reconfiguration of inputs. For example, Gilley
teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to
hand-held electronic devices wherein the electronic device can
“. . . automatically re-orient images shown on a display and re­
configure user input components based on the orientation of the
electronic device” (emphasis added-Abstract; see also Figs. 5A-
D and 6A-B). While Gilley describes the “positive Y” rule with
hard buttons, one skilled in the art would readily understand how
the reconfiguration processing instructions could be applied to
active touchscreen icons.
{Id. at 4—5.)
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to have modified the display area and control buttons as
described by Hwang with a touch screen display with
reconfigurable icon orientations as described by Davis and
Goren in order to provide quick and efficient input for selecting
ultrasound imaging parameters as such a modification requires
5
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
nothing more than the mere combination of known prior art
elements to yield predictable results.
(Id. at 4.)
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Hwang, Davis,
Goren, and Gilley teach or would have made obvious most of the limitations
of claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 3—7.) Appellants argue, however, that in the
device of claim 1 “a function is assigned to a touchscreen graphical user
control at a location between the first end region and the displayed
ultrasound image, and the function is assigned to a different touchscreen
graphical user control at the location between the first end region and the
displayed ultrasound image.” (Id. at 5.) Appellants argue that “Figs. 7B-D
of Davis expressly shows the opposite of what is claimed. In Figs. 7B/D,
the ‘home’ icon is located at the bottom, and in Fig. 7C the ‘home’ icon is
located at the top. Hence, the ‘home’ icon does not remain at the same a
location between the first end region and the displayed ultrasound image.”
(Id.)
6
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
We agree with the Examiner, however, that Davis discloses the first
and second modes recited in claim 1. Davis’ Figures 7C and 7D are
reproduced below:
Figures 7C and 7D show a display in left-handed landscape
orientation and right-handed landscape orientation, respectively. (Davis
176.)
Figure 7C, the left-handed orientation, shows a column of icons on the
left edge of the display, with a “home” icon (i.e., a house) in the upper left-
7
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
hand comer. Figure 7C also shows a “handwriting recognition area 112”
immediately to the right of the column of icons that includes the home icon.
{Id.) The handwriting recognition area includes three cells labeled 112A,
112B, and 112C, “with the cell 112A being in the top position . . . and the
cell 112C [sic, 112B] being in the bottom most position.” {Id.) Each of
cells 112A, 112B, and 112C includes a label in the upper-right comer; cell
112A is labeled “abc,” cell 112B is labeled “123,” and cell 112C is labeled
“ABC.” Davis states that cell 112A interprets gestures as “small cap
characters,” cell 112B interprets gestures as numbers, and cell 112C
interprets gestures as capitalized letters. {Id. 133.)
Figure 7D, the right-handed orientation, shows the column of icons on
the right edge of the display, with the home icon in the bottom right-hand
comer of the display. In Figure 7D, the handwriting recognition area is
immediately to the left of the column of icons that includes the home icon,
with the top cell labeled “abc,” the middle cell labeled “ABC,” and the
bottom cell labeled “123.”
Thus, in Figure 7C, the “abc” handwriting recognition cell (112A) is
closest to the home icon, while in Figure 7D the “abc” cell is farthest from
the home icon. In other words, Davis discloses that in the left-handed
orientation, the “abc” function is assigned to the cell closest to the home
icon, while in the right-handed orientation, the abc function is assigned to
the cell farthest from the home icon.
In the words of claim 1, Davis discloses that, “in the first [left-handed]
mode the first [“abc”] function is assigned to a first touchscreen graphical
user control [handwriting recognition area closest to the home icon] of the
pluralities of touchscreen graphical user controls” and “in the second [right-
8
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
handed] mode the first [“abc”] function is assigned to a second different
[handwriting recognition area farthest from the home icon] touchscreen
graphical user control of the plurality of touchscreen graphical user
controls,” “wherein a spatial arrangement and order of the plurality of
touchscreen graphical user controls is reversed between the first mode and
the second mode.”
As the Examiner pointed out, Appellants’ focus on the “home” icon in
the Appeal Brief is misplaced, because “the Examiner does not rely on the
‘home’ icon to address any claim limitation,” but rather the handwriting
recognition areas 112A, 112B, and 112C. (Ans. 3—4.)
In the Reply Brief, Appellants point to the Specification’s Figures 2A
and 2B, which show
the graphical user controls 25A, 25B and 25C are re-arranged
from top to bottom in Fig. 2A (from 25A going down to 25C) to
bottom to top in Fig. 2B (from 25C going down to 25A, the
opposite or reversed direction). The assignment of the first
function FI is reassigned from the graphical user control 25A to
the graphical user control 25C.
(Reply Br. 4.) Appellants argue that, in Davis, “the spatial arrangement and
order of the cells ‘ 112A,’ ‘ 112B,’ and ‘ 112C’ are NOT reversed in FIGS. 7C
and 7D.” (Id.)
This argument is not persuasive. As Appellants themselves
acknowledge, the functions shown in the Specification’s Figures 2 A and 2B
are indicated by the notations FI, F2, and F3. The reference numbers 25A,
25B, and 25C simply indicate which control area is which.
Davis’ Figures 7C and 7D show the same reorientation as is shown in
the Specification’s Figures 2A and 2B. That is, in the Specification’s Figure
2A, the function FI is assigned to area 25A; in Davis’ Figure 7C, the
9
Appeal 2016-008741
Application 12/188,191
function “abc” is assigned to the handwriting recognition cell closest to the
home icon. In the Specification’s Figure 2B, the function FI is instead
assigned to area 25C, and is still at the top of the column of functions FI—
F3; in Davis’ Figure 7D, the function “abc” is instead assigned to the
handwriting recognition cell farthest from the home icon, and is still at the
top of the column of handwriting recognition cells. Thus, the reassignment
of functions shown in Davis’ Figures 7C and 7D is the same as that shown
in the Specification’s Figures 2A and 2B.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Hwang, Davis, Goren, and Gilley. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 19,
21, and 24 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants have waived arguments addressing
the additional rejections, which are therefore affirmed for the reasons
discussed above.
SUMMARY
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
10