Ex Parte Yoshizawa

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 2016

12246053 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/246,053 10/06/2008 23389 7590 05/24/2016 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC 400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA SUITE 300 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Fukashi Yoshizawa 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. 23393 5343 EXAMINER SANDS, DA VINK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3769 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2016 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): Docket@SSMP.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FUKASHI YOSHIZAWA Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appellant identifies "OLYMPUS CORPORATION" as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant's invention relates to "a living body observation system and a method of driving a living body observation system including a power section having a battery or the like." (Spec. 1.) Illustrative Claim2 8. A living body observation system comprising: a living body information acquiring apparatus including: a living body information acquiring section for acquiring living body information in a living body; a wireless transmission section for wirelessly transmitting the living body information to outside of the living body; a power section including a battery for supplying driving power of the living body information acquiring section and the wireless transmission section; a magnetic field detecting section for detecting an alternating-current magnetic field with gradual change of frequency from outside by a resonant circuit and outputting a detection result as an electric signal; and a power supply control section for controlling a supply state of the driving power supplied from the power section to the living body information acquiring section and the wireless transmission section based on the electric signal; and a magnetic field generating section for generating an alternating-current magnetic field with gradual change of frequency, within frequencies which cover a variation in a resonant frequency of the resonant circuit, outside the living body information acquiring apparatus. 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims App.") set forth on pages 14-18 of the Appeal Brief. 2 Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 Fryer Dinn Hasegawa Boudaoud Lenaerts References US 3,621,290 Nov. 16, 1971 US 2004/0196605 Al Oct. 7, 2004 US 2006/0252987 Al Nov. 9, 2006 US 2007/0000321 Al Jan. 4, 2007 "An inductive power link for a wireless endoscope", Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 22 (2007) 1390-1395. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasegawa, Dinn, and Boudaoud. (Final Action 3.) The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasegawa, Dinn, Boudaoud, and Frye. (Id. at 8.) The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasegawa, Dinn, Boudaoud, and Lenaerts. (Id. at 9.) ANALYSIS Independent claim 8 is directed to a system comprising an apparatus that includes "a living body information acquiring section," "a wireless transmission section," and "a power section including a battery for supplying driving power of the living body information acquiring section and the wireless transmission section." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Hasegawa discloses an apparatus (i.e., an endoscope capsule) including these three sections required by independent claim 8. (See Final Action 3--4.) Independent claim 8 also requires "a power supply control section for controlling a supply state of the driving power supplied from the power section to the living body information acquiring section and the wireless 3 Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 transmission section." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that "Dinn discloses a system for extending the battery life of deployed devices or instruments through the use of a magnetic inductive switch reacting to the appropriate AC magnetic field." (Final Action 4.) And the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use such a magnetic inductive switch in Hasegawa's capsule "to extend the battery life of the capsule." (Id.) Independent Claim 8 additionally requires "a magnetic field generating section for detecting an alternating-current magnetic field with gradual change of frequency from outside by a resonant circuit" and "a magnetic field generating section for generating an alternating-current magnetic field with gradual change of frequency." (Claims App.) As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Dinn teaches a magnetic inductive switch that reacts to alternating current magnetic fields. (See Final Action 4.) More particularly, a circuit 30 in Dinn's switch has a specific predetermined resonant frequency (see Dinn i-f 25), and Dinn's device "is activated when it receives a transmission of a moderately large AC magnetic field at the predetermined frequency" (id. i-f 20). However, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Dinn does not teach that its generated alternating-current magnetic field changes gradually in frequency. (See Final Action 4.) The Examiner finds that Boudaoud teaches a circuit having a "specific resonant frequency" and teaches a calibration method involving "sweeping the transmitted operating frequency." (Final Action 4.) In Boudaoud, the magnetic field generated during operation of a liquid-level-sensing device has a "constant frequency." (Boudaoud i-f 50.) But during Boudaoud's calibration method, a controller "varies the operating frequency (sweeping 4 Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 the frequency from low to high or from high to low) in order to find the resonant frequency of the series-resonant circuit." (Id. i-f 53.) The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use "the sweeping transmitted frequency taught in the calibration method of Boudaoud in the AC magnetic field generation of the inductive switch of Dinn" in order to compensate for certain dimensional variations. (Final Action 4.) In other words, in the Examiner's proposed combination of the prior art, the modified version of Hasegawa's endoscope capsule contains a living body information acquiring section, a wireless transmission section, a power section, a power supply control section, and a magnetic-field detector; and a sweeping-frequency calibration is performed by a magnetic-field generator for this endoscope capsule. The Examiner finds that the magnetic-field detector would detect the generated sweeping-frequency magnetic field "while the swept frequency matches the particular tuned frequency [of the detector's resonant circuit 30]." (Final Action 2-3.) And Dinn teaches that circuit 30 selectively couples a load (e.g., the capsule's living body information acquiring section and wireless transmission section) to a battery (e.g., the capsule's power section) in response to this particular tuned frequency. (See Dinn i-f 24.) The Appellant argues that "[i]n Boudaoud, since the material which receives application of magnetic field is fuel, the operation or state of the apparatus which receives the magnetic field is not controlled by change of operating frequency in Boudaoud." (Appeal Br. 10.) We are not persuaded by this argument because, even if the Appellant's assertions are accurate, it is not aligned with Examiner's 5 Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 proposed combination of the prior art. 3 The Examiner expressly explains that "the only aspect of Boudaoud that is relied upon in the current rejection" is its disclosure of "a generator that is generating a field with a frequency that varies throughout a range of frequencies in order to hit the exact resonant frequency of a resonant circuit" and "the reason for performing [the] frequency sweep." (Advisory Action 2.) As discussed above, in the Examiner's proposed combination of the prior art, the device which receives the magnetic field is the modified version of Hasegawa's endoscope capsule. The Appellant does not adequately address why the operation or state of this endoscope capsule would not be controlled (i.e., driving power would not be supplied to the capsule's living body information acquiring section and/or wireless transmission section) when the swept frequency matches the predetermined frequency of the capsule's magnetic-field-detecting circuit. The Appellant also argues that, in contrast to Boudaoud, the claimed system "does not rely on prior detection of a resonance frequency of the antenna, calibration of the resonance frequency, and controlling a magnetic field generating device to generate a magnetic field at a fixed frequency to control a supply state of driving power supplied from the power section to the living body information acquiring section." (Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by this argument because, even if the Appellant's contentions are correct, this only establishes that independent claim 8 may read on a system that does not require calibration. The Appellant does not adequately address 3 See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of references"). 6 Appeal2014-003892 Application 12/246,053 why independent claim 8 cannot also encompass a system calibrated by a sweeping-frequency method as proposed by the Examiner. The Appellant does not, for example, point with particularity to claim language precluding the recited magnetic field generating section from also generating a magnetic field at a fixed frequency (e.g., after completion of calibration). As the Appellant does not argue that the Examiner otherwise errs in the rejection of independent claim 8, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. The Appellant does not advance additional and/ or separate arguments with respect to independent claims 18 and 19 and dependent claims 9-15 (see Appeal Br. 10), and so they fall with independent claim 8. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-15, 18, and 19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7