Ex Parte Adams

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 7, 2010

10878178 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2010)

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.
10/878,178 06/28/2004 Darwin P. Adams US030178 5284
24737 7590 07/07/2010
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
EXAMINER
CHAO, ELMER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DARWIN P. ADAMS
____________

Appeal 2009-006004
Application 10/878,178
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006004
Application 10/878,178

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a method and system for matching
transmit voltages on a line by line basis of different imaging modes of
medical ultrasound imaging systems (Spec. 2:27-29).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for matching transmit voltages of different
imaging modes of an ultrasonic transmitter having different
transmit power requirements, comprising the steps of:

directing the same power supply voltage to all of the
transmitting elements;

operatively switching between the imaging modes on a line-by-
line basis;

only when the requirement for the transmit power for an
imaging mode is less than that provided by the power supply
voltage, pulse width modulating the transmit waveform for that
imaging mode by directing a pulse width modulation signal to
all of the transmitting elements without changing the power
supply voltage between different imaging modes;

providing circuitry for pulse width modulating the transmit
waveforms; and

using the same circuitry for pulse width apodization.

REFERENCES
Sarr US 4,799,177 Jan. 17, 1989
Haider US 6,135,963 Oct. 24, 2000

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haider.
Appeal 2009-006004
Application 10/878,178

3
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Haider and Sarr.
Appellant contends Haider does not teach or suggest switching
between imaging modes on a line-by-line basis (App. Br. 9-10).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Haider teaches the features of
Appellant’s claims 1 and 8?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Haider discloses power control is performed on a
channel or element basis rather than switching between imaging modes on a
line-by-line basis as claimed in claims 1 and 8 (App. Br. 9-10).
The Examiner finds the term “line-by-line” can be interpreted in at
least two ways, each reading on the claimed limitation (Ans. 5-6). These
findings are persuasive and we adopt them as our own. Appellant has not
rebutted the Examiner’s interpretation. Thus, we find Haider discloses
switching between imaging modes on a line-by-line basis, as claimed by
Appellant. Appellant’s claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, and 14, not argued separately
(App. Br. 10) fall with claims 1 and 8.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Haider teaches the features of
Appellant’s claims 1 and 8.

Appeal 2009-006004
Application 10/878,178

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510