Ex Parte Dong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613062864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/062,864 05/27/2011 Liang Dong 2008P01367WOUS 8051 24737 7590 12/22/2016 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue LE, PHAN Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @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 LIANG DONG, MAARTEN LEONARDUS CHRISTIAN BRAND, and ZHONGTAO MEI Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 Technology Center 2600 Before JON M. JURGOVAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for locating a sound source. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for locating a target sound source of a plurality of sound sources in an object, said system comprising: a chest-piece comprising a main sensor having a center and a plurality of navigating sensors spaced away from the center, and configured to move on the object, receive a selection instruction including a signal segment type identifying the target sound source, and receive a plurality of signals from the plurality of sound sources by at least two of the plurality of navigating sensors, each of the plurality of signals having a waveform including a plurality of segments which belong to different signal segment types corresponding to different sound sources of the plurality of sound sources; a selector configured to select at least one segment of the plurality of segments of the received signals having the signal segment type corresponding to the target sound source; and a controller configured to: calculate a difference between the selected segments received by the at least two of the plurality of navigating sensors, and generate, based on the difference, at least one guiding signal for guiding the chest-piece to be moved in the direction of the target sound source, wherein the chest-piece is moved in response to the guiding signal until the target sound source is located. 2 Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 REJECTIONS Claims 1—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for a lack of antecedent basis. Claims 1—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Unver et al. (US 2008/0154144 Al; published June 26, 2008) (“Unver”), Tran (US 2008/0013747 Al; published Jan. 17, 2008), and Gavriely (US 6,261,238 Bl; issued July 17, 2001). ANALYSIS Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 The Examiner finds the limitations “a target sound source of a plurality of sound sources” and “each of the plurality signals having a waveform including a plurality of segments which belong to different signal segment types corresponding to different sound sources” are not enabled by the disclosure. Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds “[tjhere is no ‘target sound source of a plurality of sound sources’ in the original specification.” Id.; see also Ans. 3. Finally, the Examiner finds the limitation “the selected segments received by the at least two of the plurality of navigating sensors” lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 2. In the Answer, the Examiner further finds the aforementioned limitation “each of the plurality signals having a waveform including a plurality of segments which belong to different signal segment types corresponding to different sound sources” also lacks antecedent basis. Ans. 3. The PTO bears the initial burden when rejecting claims for lack of enablement. It is well-established law that the test for compliance with the 3 Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 is whether the disclosure, as filed, is sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. Id. The Wands factors include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Id. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2) and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3), and do not find any analysis based on the Wands factors or any explanation as to why the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. For these reasons, the Examiner has not shown that independent claims 1 and 11, which recite the disputed limitations, fail to comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. However, we agree with the Examiner that the limitation “the selected segments received by the at least two of the plurality of navigating sensors,” recited in independent claims 1 and 11, lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, the claim recites “a selector configured to select at least one segment. . .” and then “calculate a difference between the selected segments . . .” (emphasis added). The claim language only requires selection of one segment, but then recites to calculate a difference between the selected 4 Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 segments. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for lack of antecedent basis. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections Appellants contend the combination of Unver, Tran, and Gavriely does not teach or suggest a controller configured to “generate, based on the difference, at least one guiding signal for guiding the chest-piece to be moved in the direction of the target sound source,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 11. App. Br. 10—12. The Examiner relies on Fig 17 and 18 and paragraphs 258, 259, and 264 through 270 of Unver to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. Appellants argue Unver teaches identifying a moving valve and determining the distance moved and the speed of a valve. App. Br. 10. Further, Appellants argue “[a]ny differences in received signals in Unver are not used to generate any guiding signal for guiding the chest-piece to be moved in the direction of the sound source, and are rather used to determine motion, moved distance and speed of the sound source or valve.” App. Br. 11. Appellants also contend repositioning the sensor/transducer to accurately point at the defective valve, or indicating when the sensor/transducer is pointing accurately at the valve does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 4. Moreover, according to Appellants, even if Unver discloses or suggests the generation of a guiding signal, such a guiding signal is not generated based on “a difference between 5 Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 the selected segments received by the at least two of the plurality of navigating sensors.” Reply Br. 5. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Figures 17 and 18 of Unver describe processes for motion and speed detection, respectively. Unver H 216, 222. Paragraphs 264 to 270 describe an embodiment of signal processor 1153. Paragraph 259 states in part Additionally, display of information may be defined based upon statistical confidence levels to minimize misdiagnosis and provide user recommendations. For example, if the valve responsible for a murmur is not reliably detected, say, over 50% of the cardiac cycle, the sensor/transducer may not be pointing in a stable fashion due to hand motion etc., it may indicate repositioning or provide feedback to the user and likewise indicate when the sensor/transducer is pointing accurately at a valve or provide feedback to maximize the motion trace indicating a look direction that sees maximum travel of the leaflet. Even assuming repositioning the sensor/transducer or providing feedback to the user generates a guiding signal, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that such repositioning or feedback is based on the difference between the selected segments received by the at least two of the plurality of navigating sensors, as claimed. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2—10 and 12—17. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1—17 is reversed. 6 Appeal 2015-006756 Application 13/062,864 The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1—17 is affirmed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—17 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation