DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021001972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 15/855,915 12/27/2017 Joshua D. Talbert OMC-0053.NP1 1526 112802 7590 03/23/2022 TechLaw Ventures, PLLC 3290 West Mayflower Ave. Lehi, UT 84043 EXAMINER NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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@techlawventures.com terrence@techlawventures.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSHUA D. TALBERT and DONALD M. WICHERN Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “endoscopic imaging and more particularly relates to systems, methods and devices for providing illumination in an endoscopic imaging environment.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An endoscopic system comprising: an image sensor comprising a pixel array and configured to generate and read out pixel data for an image based on electromagnetic radiation received by the pixel array of the image sensor, wherein the pixel array comprises a plurality of lines for reading out pixel data, and wherein a time length for reading out all the plurality of lines of pixel data in the pixel array comprises a readout period; an emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for illumination of a scene observed by the image sensor; and an electromagnetic radiation driver configured to drive emissions by the emitter, the electromagnetic radiation driver comprising a jitter specification, wherein the jitter specification comprises time variation between a first time delay and a second time delay, wherein the first time delay comprises time between a control signal turning on an emitter and emission of electromagnetic radiation, wherein the second time delay comprises time between a control signal turning off an emitter and ending emission of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the jitter specification is less than or equal to about 10% to about 25% percent of the readout period of the pixel array of the image sensor. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ishiwata US 2009/0009595 Al Jan. 8, 2009 Kameshima US 2014/0008519 A1 Jan. 9, 2014 Blanquart US 2014/0163319 A1 June 12, 2014 Stokes US 2014/0184857 Al July 3, 2014 Takei US 2015/0116561 Al Apr. 30, 2015 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 12-15, 17-26, 29-32, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Blanquart, Kameshima, and Takei. Final Act. 4-17. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Blanquart, Kameshima, Takei, and Ishiwata. Final Act. 18-19. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Blanquart, Kameshima, Takei, and Stokes. Final Act. 19-21. OPINION THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON BLANQUART, KAMESHIMA, AND TAKEI Claims 1-9, 12-15, 17-26, 29-32, and 34 The Examiner determines that Kameshima teaches the claimed jitter specification comprising a first and second time delay between a control signal and starting or ending emission of electromagnetic radiation. Final Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 4 Act. 7-9. In particular, the Examiner relies on Kameshima’s Figures 1B and 3A. Final Act. 7-9. The Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 1B is reproduced below. Kameshima’s Figure 1B Depicting a Timing Diagram for the Control Signal and Radiation Annotated by the Examiner to Delineate T1, T2, T3, and T4 Time Lines As shown, the Examiner relies on the time between T1 and T2 as the first time delay and the time between T3 and T4 as the second time delay. Ans. 21-22; Final Act. 7-9. The Examiner “printed in a paper the Fig. 1B of Kameshima and measured the distance using a scale” to determine there is a variation between the first and second time delay. Ans. 22. The Examiner further explains: As illustrated in FIG. 1B, the intensity of the emitted radiation 133 is delayed behind switching of the control signal. In particular, “wave tails” which are delays occurring when the control signal is switched from Hi to Lo and which are indicated by “WT” in FIG. 1 B need to be taken into account. Final Act. 9. Similarly, in Figure 3A (reproduced below), the Examiner points to the time between ta and tb as the first time delay and the time between tc, td, and te as the second time delay. Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 23. Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 5 Kameshima’s Figure 3B Depicting a Timing Diagram Including an Exemplary Operation for Calculating a Threshold Value for Detecting Irradiation Appellant argues Blanquart, Kameshima, and Takei fail to teach or suggest the claimed jitter specification comprising the first and second time delay. Appeal Br. 9-17. In particular, Appellant points out that, Kameshima discloses “When the control signal output from the radiation control apparatus 131 is set in a Hi mode, supply of a desired tube voltage to the radiation generating apparatus 130 is started” and “when the control signal is set in a Lo mode, supply of the desired tube voltage to the radiation generating apparatus 130 is stopped.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing Kameshima ¶ 23). In other words, Appellant explains that Kameshima’s Figure 1B shows that the radiation emission begins increasing at the same time as the control signal going high and begins decreasing at the same time as the control signal going low. Appeal Br. 15-17. According to Appellant then, Kameshima does not teach any time delay between the control signal Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 6 going Hi and the emission of radiation, nor does Kameshima teach a time delay between the control signal going Lo and stopping radiation emission. Appeal Br. 16-17. Appellant also points out that Kameshima’s Figs. 3A and 6B depict the detection signal pattern not the emitted radiation signal. We agree with Appellant. Notably, Kameshima discloses an intensity delay, not a time delay. For example, Kameshima describes “[a]s illustrated in FIG. 1B, the intensity of the emitted radiation 133 is delayed behind switching of the control signal.” Kameshima ¶ 23 (emphasis added). As Appellant points out, Kameshima’s Fig. 1B shows radiation emission begins increasing when the control signal is high and begins decreasing when the control signal is switched to low. Kameshima, Fig. 1B. While Kameshima generally teaches compensating for the wave tail, Kameshima does not teach or suggest this wave tail is equivalent to the claimed time delay. See also Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). We also agree with Appellant that the timing diagrams of Kameshima’s Figures 3A and 6B depict the detection signal, not the radiation signal, and therefore also do not teach or suggest the claimed time delay between the control signal and emission of electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that claimed invention is unpatentable over Blanquart, Kameshima, and Takei. Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 7 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 12-15, 17-26, 29-32, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Blanquart, Kameshima, and Takei. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 10, 11, 16, 27, 28, and 33 As discussed above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 18. The additionally cited prior art fails to cure the deficiencies of the combination of Blanquart, Kameshima, and Takei. As such, we are similarly persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 10, 11, 16, 27, 28, and 33 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art. Appeal 2021-001972 Application 15/855,915 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-9, 12-15, 17-26, 29- 32, 34 103 Blanquart, Kameshima, Takei 1-9, 12-15, 17-26, 29- 32, 34 16, 33 103 Blanquart, Kameshima, Takei, Ishiwata 16, 33 10, 11, 27, 28 103 Blanquart, Kameshima, Takei, Stokes 10, 11, 27, 28 Overall Outcome 1-34 REVERSED