KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2021003968 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021)

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.
15/323,180 12/30/2016 Amir Mohmmad TAHMASEBI MARAGHOOSH 2013P01828WOUS 9377
24737 7590 12/13/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
HOFFMAN, JOANNE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMIR MOHMMAD TAHMASEBI MARAGHOOSH

Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180

2

BACKGROUND
The Specification states:
The present invention generally relates to an ultrasound
workstation serving as a primary source for generating and/or
displaying ultrasound images via an ultrasound transducer. The
present invention specifically relates to an ultrasound tablet
interfacing with the ultrasound workstation to serve as an
alternative primary source or a secondary source for generating
and/or displaying the ultrasound images.
Spec. 1, ll. 4–9.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An ultrasound system, comprising:
an ultrasound transducer configured to generate
ultrasound signals representative of an ultrasound imaging of an
anatomical region;
an ultrasound workstation configured to communicate
with the ultrasound transducer to generate an ultrasound image
of the anatomical region in accordance with a user interface of
the ultrasound workstation; and
an ultrasound tablet configured to communicate with the
ultrasound workstation to display at least a portion of the
ultrasound image of the anatomical region as generated by the
ultrasound workstation in accordance with a user interface of the
ultrasound tablet,
wherein the ultrasound tablet is attachable to and
detachable from the ultrasound workstation,
wherein the ultrasound tablet establishes wireless
communication with the ultrasound workstation responsive to
being detached from the ultrasound workstation,
Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180

3
wherein the ultrasound tablet establishes wired
communication with the ultrasound workstation responsive to
being attached to the ultrasound workstation,
wherein ultrasound workstation includes a workstation
central controller configured to simultaneously adjust imaging
parameters of a workstation display of the ultrasound
workstation and a tablet display of ultrasound table when the
ultrasound tablet is attached to the ultrasound workstation, and
wherein the ultrasound tablet includes a tablet central
controller configured to simultaneously adjust imaging
parameters of the workstation display and the tablet display when
the ultrasound tablet is detached from the ultrasound
workstation.
Appeal Br. 20–21 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Koch2 in view of Serceki.3 Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
With respect to the rejection over Koch in view of Serceki, Appellant
addresses independent claims 1, 7, and 12 together. See Appeal Br. 14. We
select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, and independent
claims 7 and 12 will fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Koch teaches an
ultrasound system including an ultrasound transducer 112; a processing
unit 110 in a workstation stand; and elements 104, 108 and displays 106,
109 in communication with the processing unit. Final Act. 3 (citing Koch
Figs. 1A, 1B; ¶¶ 11–15). The Examiner explains that Koch teaches that “the

2 Koch et al., US 2014/0098049 A1, pub. Apr. 10, 2014.
3 Serceki, US 7,787,014 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2010.
Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180

4
different displays and interfaces . . . are in communication with each other
and the ultrasound” and that the displays can remotely communicate with the
processing unit. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner relies on Serceki for showing “that elements of a
system can be in a wired and wireless communication which are seen as a
workstation and tablet.” Id. at 4. The Examiner further clarifies that Serceki
is relied upon to the extent that Koch does “not explicitly state that there are
more than one controller or if the controller is only associated with the
tablet.” Ans. 7. Thus, the Examiner relies upon Serceki to the extent Koch
does not teach a wired and wireless connection of the tablet with the
workstation or the use of separate controllers in the tablet and workstation,
both for simultaneously adjusting imaging parameters, as required by the
claim. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 7–9. In other words, Serceki is relied upon “to
show that a portable imaging device is able to have its own control system
and send data back to the host/workstation,” which is not explicitly provided
for in Koch. Ans. 8–9. The Examiner further explains that the combination
has “a control or processing unit in both the workstation and portable tablet
allow[ing] for two way communication in a wired or wireless connection”
for use in conjunction with Koch’s teaching showing “mirroring images on
two different displays via a wired or wireless connection.” Id. at 9.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the
rejection of claim 1 as provided in the Final Action and further explained in
the Answer. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant argues that “Koch clearly fails describe, teach or suggest
the single controller 110 for simultaneously adjusting imaging parameters of
Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180

5
both the tablet display 104 and the workstation display 108 via the user
interface of the table [sic: tablet] display 104 or via the user interface of the
workstation display 108.” Appeal Br. 15. In support, Appellant asserts that
Koch describes that the controller 110 independently controls the imaging
parameters for the tablet display 104 via the user interface of the tablet and
independently controls imaging parameters of the workstation display via
the user interface of the workstation. Id. In other words, Appellant asserts
that Koch’s controller independently controls the tablet image parameters
and the workstation image parameters.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains, Koch “teaches that both
displays can act as a touchscreen (user input) and receive inputs [from] a
user and [be] controlled by the processing unit.” Ans. 5 (citing Koch ¶ 12).
More specifically, Koch discloses that “the displays 104 and 108 can be
configured to receive input from the user” and that “the processing unit 110
can be configured to adjust the display outputs 106 and 109, respectively
based on touch-based input received from an operator.” Koch ¶ 12. Koch
further clarifies that both displays may be touch sensitive. Id. ¶ 15.
Additionally, Koch discloses that “[i]n some embodiments, for example, the
display output 109 may be similar or identical to the display output 106” and
in other embodiments the display outputs may be different. Id. ¶ 14. Where
the display output is the same, the controller needs to simultaneously adjust
the imaging parameters as they are received from the input device. And
contrary to Appellant’s assertions, because Koch discloses that both the
tablet display 104 and workstation display 108 may be used for input, Koch
at least suggests that either the workstation or the tablet may be used for
input to the controller that would simultaneously adjust the imaging
Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180

6
parameters of both the tablet and workstation displays in order for the
displays to be identical.
Appellant also argues that Koch does not “describe, teach, or suggest”
a workstation with a workstation controller and a tablet with a tablet
controller and that “Serceki fails to describe, teach or suggest a modification
of Koch” to include separate and distinct controllers in the workstation and
tablet. Appeal Br. 16. Yet, Appellant does not appear to address the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion regarding the combination proposed.
To the extent that Koch does not expressly teach both a workstation with a
workstation controller and a tablet with a tablet controller, the Examiner
relies on Serceki to fill this gap. The Examiner explains that “Serceki was
brought in to show that there can be two separate controllers in both the
main workstation and the tablet and that the flow of information and control
signals can go from tablet to workstation and vice versa.” Ans. 7; see also
Final Act. 2. In other words, the Examiner explains that Serceki “was used
to show that a portable imaging device is able to have its own control system
and send data back to the host/workstation.” Ans. 8–9. The Examiner
further explains that the combination shows “that having a control or
processing unit in both the workstation and portable tablet allows for two
way communication in a wired or wireless connection and that the main
reference showed mirroring images on two different displays via a wired or
wireless connection.” Id. at 9. Appellant’s argument does not identify any
error in the Examiner’s findings regarding Serceki or explain how the
Examiner otherwise erred in relying on Serceki, as explained in the Answer.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 7
Appeal 2021-003968
Application 15/323,180

7
and 12, which fall with claim 1. Regarding the dependent claims, Appellant
relies on the same arguments as those addressed above. See Appeal Br. 17–
18. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, and 15.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7,
10–12, 15
103 Koch, Serceki 1, 5–7,
10–12, 15

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136 (a)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED