Ex Parte Schwartz

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 2012

10574184 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte GARY A. SCHWARTZ __________ Appeal 2011-010875 Application 10/574,184 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2011-010875 Application 10/574,184 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are drawn to an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging systems for three dimensional scanning, and may be found in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 18-21). The following grounds of rejection are before us for review: I. Claims 1-9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Seyed-Bolorforosh 1 and Powers 2 (Ans. 3). II. Claims 10-13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Seyed-Bolorforosh and Powers, as further combined with Ustuner 3 (Ans. 5). We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellant’s arguments that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own. We also highlight the following. Our mandate is to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 1 Seyed-Bolorforosh et al., US 5,797,846, issued Aug. 25, 1998. 2 Powers et al., US 2002/0045822 A1, published Apr. 18, 2002. 3 Ustuner et al., US 6,551,246 B1, issued Apr. 22, 2003. Appeal 2011-010875 Application 10/574,184 3 Independent claims 1 and 9 are both drawn to an apparatus. Claim 1 includes the limitation of “wherein beams produced by the beamformer exhibit a first point spread function when the volumetric region is scanned with a first line density and a second point spread function when the volumetric region is scanned with a second line density.” Claim 9 includes the limitation of “wherein the beamformer utilizes a first aperture function when the volumetric region is scanned with a first line density and a second aperture function when the volumetric region is scanned with a second line density.” We interpret the above wherein clauses as limiting the claims to an apparatus that is capable of exhibiting two different point spread functions (claim 1) or of utilizing two different aperture functions (claim 9). The recitation that “a first point spread function when the volumetric region is scanned with a first line density and a second point spread function when the volumetric region is scanned with a second line density” or that “the beamformer utilizes a first aperture function when the volumetric region is scanned with a first line density and a second aperture function when the volumetric region is scanned with a second line density” are then recitations of intended use, as they do not further limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. Here, the Examiner finds that Seyed-Bolorforosh teaches all of the elements of the apparatus of claims 1 and 9, except that Seyed-Bolorforosh teaches a linear transducer array, and fails to teach a two-dimensional transducer array (Ans. 3-5). The Examiner then relies on Powers, which discloses a two-dimensional ultrasonic diagnostic imaging transducer in Appeal 2011-010875 Application 10/574,184 4 order to acquire a three-dimensional imaging volume, to remedy that deficiency (id. at 5). In view of the claim interpretation set forth above, Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 9-10) that Seyed-Bolorforosh achieves a high frame rate to fill in the spaces between the widely separated beams at the deeper depths, whereas the instant invention does it by using a relaxed, broader point spread functions, is not convincing. Appellants are arguing method limitations, and Appellant does not point to how those methods limit the claimed apparatus. “[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In that regard, we note that, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Seyed-Bolorforosh teaches that “the beam spacing for an optimum image is determined by the beam width or lateral point spread function” (Seyed- Bolorforosch, col. 1, ll. 60-62). According to Seyed-Bolorforosh, the “lateral point spread function is determined by the product of the wavelength and the F number,” wherein the “F number equals the focal depth divided by the aperture” (id. at col. 1, ll. 62-67). Seyed-Bolorforosh also teaches that the F number changes along the longitudinal and azimuthal axis, and that the aperture size also changes (Seyed-Bolorforosh, Figures 3A and 3B, see also col. 3, ll. 32-45). Thus, the apparatus of Seyed-Bolorforosh is capable of exhibiting two different point spread functions (claim 1) or of utilizing two different aperture functions (claim 9). The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2011-010875 Application 10/574,184 5 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 cdc