Ex Parte Freiburger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

12174514 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/174,514 07/16/2008
28524 7590 08/18/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Freiburger
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.
2008P082 l 4US 8817
EXAMINER
BRUTUS, JOEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL FREIBURGER, LEIXIANG FAN,
and JOHN DENNIS
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN,
and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
and system for adaptive regulation of acoustic output power in medical
ultrasound imaging. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Siemens Medical Solutions
USA, Inc. (see App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
Statement of the Case
Background
Appellants' invention relates "to medical diagnostic ultrasonic
imaging, and in particular, to systems that adaptively regulate acoustic
output power" "pursuant to Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Underwriters Laboratories (UL), International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC), and/or other safety regulations" (Spec. i-fi-f l-2).
The Claims
Claims 1-20 are on appeal. Independent claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for adaptive regulation of acoustic output power
in medical diagnostic ultrasound imaging, the method
compnsmg:
measuring, with an imaging system, a value of attenuation . .
m a scan reg10n;
1 ,. 1 1• ,. •,1 1 ,
aaapnvety aa1usnng, wnn a processor, a regutawry power
limit calculation as a function of the value of the attenuation; and
applying a power limit from the regulatory power limit
calculation as adjusted by the adjusting to a subsequent acoustic
transmission, which has a power limited by a power limit of the
regulatory power limit calculation as adjusted by the adjusting.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 8, 9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pittaro2 and Qin3 (Ans. 2-7).
2 Pittaro, US 5,113,706, issued May 19, 1992.
3 Qin et al., US 2005/0283072 Al, published Dec. 22, 2005.
2
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
B. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 10, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pittaro, Qin, and Miller4 (Ans. 7-13).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Pittaro, Qin, Miller, and Wilson5 (Ans. 13-14).
A. 35 USC§ 103(a) over Pittaro and Qin
The Examiner finds that Pittaro teaches that "transmit power is
constrained by subject welfare considerations as codified in regulations of
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [see column 1 lines 44-50]; safety
guidelines dictate that delivered ultrasound power density be maintained
within established maxima (relied on as a regulatory power limit)" (Ans. 2-
3).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
combine Pittaro with Qin et al[.] by measuring a value of
attenuation in a scan region such as a bone; because a transmit
po\~1er meeting po\~1er requirements for lesser depths is not
sufficient for generating images at much greater depths (bone)
and accordingly, wide range imaging is enhanced by stepping up
transmit power as zone depth is increased [see column 4 lines
52----67, Pittaro].
(Id. at 3--4.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion that Pittaro and Qin render the
claims prima facie obvious?
4 Miller, US 6,210,335 Bl, issued Apr. 3, 2001.
5 Wilson et al., US 4,446,740, issued May 8, 1984.
3
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
Findings of Fact
1. Pittaro teaches
An ultrasound system steps focus and power through a
series of focal zones to provide real-time seamless images with a
range exceeding the depth of field of the employed ultrasound
transducer. The information required for the focus and power
functions are stored in memories which are read out by a zone
sequencer. The data is stored in registers in the drive circuitry so
that no time is lost in generating succeeding power bursts.
(Pittaro Abstract; see also Ans. 6.)
2. Pittaro teaches
Greater sensitivity can also be obtained by increasing the
power transmitted into a subject of interest; however, the
transmit power is constrained by subject welfare considerations
as codified in regulations of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). Thus, in practice, for fixed focus systems, there is a
tradeoff between sensitivity and focal range.
(Pittaro 1 :44--50; see also Ans. 2-3, 5---6, 8, 11.)
3. Pittaro teaches that
an ultrasound system employs a transmitter section including a
zone sequencer for cycling through a series of focal zones at each
transducer steering position, and a power modulator which
adjusts deliverable power density as a function of the current
zone. Signals from successive bursts in a cycle are spliced
together after reception to yield a full range image without
temporal discontinuities. In effect, dynamic transmit focus with
corresponding gain compensation is implemented over a series
of [pulse] bursts.
(Pittaro 4:14--24; see also Ans. 4 and 9.)
4
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
4. Pittaro teaches
The zone sequencer also provides current zone
information to the power modulation circuitry. Safety guidelines
dictate that delivered ultrasound power density be maintained
within established maxima. However, for a given transmit
power, delivered power density varies with focal depth due to
attenuation of acoustic signals in a subject. Therefore,
transmission power can be increased with focal depth while
meeting safety requirements. In practice, transmission power
must be increased with focal depth to compensate for attenuation
and beam-spreading. A transmit power meeting power
requirements for lesser depths is not sufficient for generating
images at much greater depths. Accordingly, wide range
imaging is enhanced by stepping up transmit power as zone depth
is increased.
(Pittaro 4:52---66; see also Ans. 3---6, 8-9, 11.)
5. Pittaro teaches
varying burst frequency by zone. The burst frequency is the
fundamental frequency of its pulse trains and determines the
fundamental frequency of the generated acoustic wavefronts.
Acoustic wavefronts with higher frequencies attenuate more
rapidly than those with lower frequencies. Hence, transmit
power calculations can take frequency into account when
determining the transmit power required to achieve a given
delivered power density to a focal point. Similarly, soft focus
techniques can affect the power density delivered by a wavefront
having a given transmit power.
(Pittaro 5:8-19; see also Ans. 4, 9.)
6. Pittaro teaches
To provide for real time feel, the proper delays and power
adjustments must be made without incurring significant delays.
In particular, a power supply must be able to transition between
successive pulse power levels at the burst firing rate. The pulse
5
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
amplitudes can be computed at the beginning of a steering sweep
and stored in an addressable memory.
(Pittaro 5:46-52; see also Ans. 3 and 6.)
7. Figure 3 of Pittaro is reproduced below:
ZONE
SEQUENCER
302
132 ·- 1-.340 134 ·---· »- 352
r·-·-·-·-·-· ·- ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·,
i I
i. SCAN VIOEO ECHO llME·VARVING j
I MO~rOA CO!>l~~rTER BU[f Pl PBO~~SING ~%N ~
i. .. - - - - I
i.~?!l.'::~~.::._._·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·..,.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j
Figure 3 shows that "[f]requency select section 312, burst generator 320,
power computer 314, pulse amplitude controller 322, element select section
316 and element enable controller 324 collectively constitute a power
section 328 that determines the transmit power for each burst" (Pittaro 7 :22-
27; see also Ans. 9), and that "timing signals act as switches which couple
and decouple a voltage from pulse amplitude controller 322, which includes
a programmable power supply, to the output of transducer driver 308"
(Pittaro 8:33-37; see also Ans. 9).
8. Pittaro teaches "[t]he power of bursts in a cycle is increased
with increasing focal depth to compensate for the increased attenuation and
6
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
increased beam spread, to which echo signals from the deeper zones are
subjected" (Pittaro 8:57---60; see also Ans. 3).
9. Pittaro teaches
The amplified echo signal segments are then processed by
echo processing section 332. Echo processing section 332
introduces relative delays between the echo signal segments of
an echo signal set, i.e., echo signal segments resulting from a
common burst. The as-delayed signals are then combined to
yield a video signal. In echo processing section 332, the
processing is performed digitally.
To this end, echo processing section 332 includes a bank
of twenty-four analog-to-digital converters ( ADCs ).
(Pittaro 11:52---63; see also Ans. 6-7.)
10. Qin teaches
a system and method for determining at least one material
property of a material sample (such as a bone sample) at at least
one point. . . . The processor determines at least one ultrasonic
parameter for the at least one point of the material sample based
upon the transmitted and received ultrasonic signals. The
processor further determines the at least one material property at
the point of the sample based upon the at least one ultrasonic
parameter.
(Qin Abstract; see also Ans. 7 .)
11. Qin teaches
Variations of ultrasonic measurements and parameters at
this level are highly correlated to bone properties, such as bone
mineral density (BMD) and [s]tiffness. One way of using
ultrasound to increase the resolution and measure smaller
properties is to use higher frequency ultrasound. However, as
the frequency of the ultrasound is increased, the energy of the
ultrasonic wave attenuates more rapidly in the material. This is
especially problematic in using ultrasound on a bone in a live
person, where the ultrasonic wave must pass through a large
7
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
amount of tissue, bone, etc. Thus, it would be desirable to utilize
higher frequency ultrasound to measure smaller bone properties
while adjusting the energy of the ultrasonic wave accordingly.
(Qin i-f 16; see also Ans. 3, 7, 9, 11.)
12. Qin teaches
[an] apparatus that uses ultrasound on the bone of a living
patient, where the ultrasound is of a relatively large frequency
that is capable of providing ultrasonic measurements and
parameters for the bone at the trabeculae level. Focusing of the
acoustic signal using confocal transducers in the present
invention compensates for the rapid attenuation of energy in the
material due to the increased frequency.
(Qin i-f 20; see also Ans. 3.)
13. Qin teaches that "BUA means broadband ultrasonic attenuation
and when measured a BUA value may be expressed as dB/MHz.
Attenuation of broadband ultrasonic waves increases as soft tissue thickness
increases that is less dense than the hard or calcified tissue" (Qin i-f 34; see
also Ans. 8 and 11 ), and that "[h ]igher frequencies usually provide higher
spatial resolution. Tissue penetration decreases with higher frequencies.
Lower transmission frequencies are generally characterized by lower spatial
resolution with improved tissue penetration" (Qin i-f 36; see also Ans. 3).
14. Qin teaches
The present invention overcomes a limitation that arises
when ultrasound is applied in the measurement of smaller bone
structures or regions. Specifically, the measurement of smaller
bone structures requires increased frequency. However, an
undesirable consequence of increasing the frequency of
interrogation is that there is a corresponding increase in energy
loss. To overcome this limitation, the present invention utilizes
a relatively high frequency (for example in the range of 1-10
MHz) that can be used to examine smaller bone structure, along
8
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
with confocal scanning to make up for energy losses due to the
enhanced frequency.
(Qin i-f 40; see also Ans. 3.)
15. Qin teaches
The continuous scan mode is performed much faster than
the discrete mode, since the stepper mode sweeps continuously
across a scanning line instead of stopping at each measurement
point. The difference in the speed of measurement is the only
substantive difference between the discrete and continuous
modes. The measurement parameters are substantially the same
in both modes.
(Qin i-f 48; see also Ans. 9.)
16. Figure 2 of Qin is reproduced below:
Cmnputer
Figure 2 shows
$lgl'lal Gt:i.wmlllr
t!mt
The computer 22 performs the following functions and
calculations: controlling the signal generator unit 23 by
9
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
providing waveform data thereto and/or setting the rate of the
pulse or tone burst and other miscellaneous control signals;
independently controlling the movement (range and speed) of the
three-dimensional scanning stage to perform a three-dimensional
scan of a bone specimen []. . . . Computer 22 also performs
calculation of the propagation velocity of the ultrasound in
transmission (UV); calculation of the ultrasound attenuation
number (ATT) (in dB); calculation of the broadband ultrasound
attenuation (BUA) (in dB/MHz), calculation of BMD and
Stiffness [].
(Qin i-f 64; see also Ans. 3.)
17. Qin teaches that "[t]he BUA and ATT values represent two
different forms of ultrasound attenuation (UA) .... Ultrasound attenuation
number (A TT) image represents the energy decay attenuation as a function
of material density" (Qin i-f 88; see also Ans. 7 .)
Principles of Law
The Supreme Court has emphasized that "the [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As noted by the Court in
KSR, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton." Id. at 421. "The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." Id. at 416.
DyStar teaches that claims are obvious when the "'improvement' is
technology-independent and the combination of references results in a
product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger,
cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient."
10
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
DyStar T'extilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutsch/and KG v. CH Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 2-18; FF 1-20) and agree that the
claims are obvious over Pittaro and Qin. We address Appellants' arguments
below.
Claim 1
Appellants contend that "Qin, et al. relate to 'determining at least one
material property of a material sample' (Abstract). There is no power limit,
only a frequency range and desired power (paragraph 16) .... "(App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded. As the Examiner explains,
Qin is not relied for teaching a power limit; however, Qin et al[.]
does disclose adjusting the energy of the ultrasound wave
according to smaller bone properties [see 0016] which suggests
that power limit may be set so as not to cause harm. Pittaro
discloses determining transmit power required to achieve a given
delivered power [see column 5 lines 15-18]; therefore, the
determined power that is required is considered the set/calculated
power that can be adjusted or modulated by the transmit power
modulation circuit [see column 4 lines 52-62].
(Ans. 14; FF 4, 5, 11; see also FF 2, 6, 8, 12, 14.) Given FDA regulations
that specifically limit transmit power (FF 2), the ordinary artisan would
recognize that adjusting power is a results optimizable variable, particularly
in light of Pittaro' s teaching that "transmit power calculations can take
frequency into account when determining the transmit power required to
achieve a given delivered power density to a focal point" (FF 5). "Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
11
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
references[]. [The reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants argue that "Pittaro uses a constant power limit (e.g.,
Mechanical Index (MI)), but adjusts the actual transmit power within that
constant limit" (App. Br. 7), and that "Pittaro does not disclose adjusting the
power limit calculation. The actual power to transmit is changed with the
power limit being constant in Pittaro. Pittaro does not disclose a power limit
that has been adjusted" (id. at 7-8).
We agree with the Examiner that
in the application[,] paragraph [[]0028], Appellant discloses
"power may be adjusted while satisfying the regulatory limit".
As described in Appellant's own specification, the power that is
being adjusted is in fact a transmit power that is set which
Applicant considers or refers to as "power limit". The regulatory
power limit as argued by Appellant is in fact the conventional
regulatory power limit set by FD A which is taught by Pittaro [see
column 1 lines 44-50] and indeed should not be changed and
should stay constant. Accordingly[,] Pittaro discloses
determining transmit power required to achieve a given delivered
power [see column 5 lines 15-18]; therefore, the determined
power that is required is considered the set/calculated power that
can be adjusted or modulated by the transmit power modulation
circuit [see column 4 lines 52-62][.]
(Ans. 14--15; FF 2, 4--5; see also FF 6-7.)
12
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
Appellants contend that "Pittaro discloses a power (x watts or Joules)
and a power limit (e.g., MI)" (App. Br. 8). More particularly, Appellants
contend that
The safety regulation power limit is constant in all of
Pittaro's discussion. The variable is power. The calculation of
the power limit does not change. The maxima of the power
density or calculation of the maxima is not altered, but is instead
treated as a constant by Pittaro. The alteration of Pittaro is of the
power to see if the power is under the constant maxima.
Changing the power is not changing the power limit calculation
and is not changing the maxima.
(App. Br. 8.)
that
We do not find this persuasive because we agree with the Examiner
the safety regulation power limit is constant in Pittaro so as
described in paragraph [see 0028] of Appellant's own
specification. The power that is adjusted in Appellant's claimed
invention is a calculated power that is set while staying under the
regulatory power limit; therefore, the power limit that is being
adjusted in Appellant's invention is in fact a transmit power that
is determined or set, but not the regulatory power limit which is
fixed by FDA just as disclosed by Pittaro [column 1 lines 44--
50].
(Ans. 15; FF 2).
Appellants argue that
Pittaro notes the effect of attenuation . . . Due to attenuation
effects, power density is increased for deeper focal zones (col. 4,
lines 14-24). However, the attenuation is assumed. Pittaro
increases power for deeper focal zones (col. 8, lines 57-68), but
do so without using an actual value for attenuation, let alone a
measured value of attenuation. Similarly, Pittaro mentions a
power limit (col. 1, lines 46-50; and col. 4, lines 53-55), but use
the constant power limit. Pittaro may change the power of a
13
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
transm1ss10n to account for greater depth due to assumed
attenuation, but do not do not use a measured attenuation to
adjust the power limit.
(App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that "[ n ]either reference associates a
measured attenuation with an adjustment of a power limit" (id. at 9).
Appellants also argue that "[ e ]ven treating the adjustment as being of the
power limit, Pittaro does not adjust as a function of measured attenuation.
Assumed attenuation as a function of depth is used" (id.).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Pittaro teaches that "for a
given transmit power, delivered power density varies with focal depth due to
attenuation of acoustic signals in a subject" and that "[i]n practice,
transmission power must be increased with focal depth to compensate for
attenuation and beam-spreading" (FF 4). Pittaro teaches that "transmit
power calculations can take frequency into account when determining the
transmit power required to achieve a given delivered power density to a
focal point'; (FF 5). Qin teaches that "[ c ]omputer 22 also performs
calculation of the propagation velocity of the ultrasound in transmission
(UV); calculation of the ultrasound attenuation number (ATT) (in dB);
calculation of the broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) (in dB/MHz),
calculation of BMD and Stiffness []"(FF 16), and that "[t]he BUA and ATT
values represent two different forms of ultrasound attenuation (UA) ..
. . Ultrasound attenuation number (ATT) image represents the energy decay
attenuation as a function of material density" (FF 17). Qin also teaches that
"Variations of ultrasonic measurements and parameters at this level are
highly correlated to bone properties, such as bone mineral density (BMD)
and [ s ]tiffness" (FF 11 ).
14
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that "Qin et al[.] disclose[s]
attenuation value [see 0064, 0087-0088] and further disclose[ s] adjusting the
energy of ultrasound wave (therefore power) according to attenuation value
of bone properties [see 0016]" (Ans. 16) and that "because Pittaro discloses
due to attenuation effects, power is increased [see column [ 4, lines] 14-24]
as pointed by Appellant on page 8 of the argument section" (id.). See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.
that
We also recognize, but are not persuaded by Appellants' contention
The power used for a transmission, as long as it satisfies
the power limit, may be at that level or lower (i.e., may be
adjusted). Claim 1 and paragraph 28 both mention adjustment of
the power limit. The citation to paragraph 28 of the specification
does not change the interpretation of claim 1 to remove the
recitation of also adjusting a regulatory power limit calculation
where a power limit from the regulatory power limit calculation
as adjusted by the adjusting is applied to a subsequent acoustic
transmission, \~1hich has a po\~1er limited by a po\~1er limit of the
regulatory power limit calculation as adjusted by the adjusting.
Claim 1 and paragraph 28 both deal with adjusting the power
limit, which is not disclosed by Pittaro.
(Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellants also argue that "[p]aragraph 16 of Qin, et al.
merely notes the well-known relationship between frequency and attenuation
- higher frequency results in greater attenuation" (id. at 3), that "[t]here is no
teaching that the deration is changed in a power limit calculation" (id.), and
that "Qin, et al. do not determine the type of tissue" (id. at 4).
We remain unpersuaded for the reasons discussed above. Pittaro
teaches "transmit power calculations can take frequency into account when
determining the transmit power required to achieve a given delivered power
density to a focal point" (FF 5). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
15
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
the combination of Pittaro and Qin render obvious adjusting a regulatory
power limit calculation where a power limit from the regulatory power limit
calculation as adjusted by the adjusting is applied to a subsequent acoustic
transmission. That is, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the
calculation may be repeated in light of new or different data. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 416, 418, and 421; see also DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368.
Claims 5, 19, and 20
Appellants also contend that "Pittaro and Qin, et al. do not show
changing a deration value in the limiting of power" (id. at 11 ).
The Examiner responds that "Pittaro' s illustration of increase and
decrease of power would implicitly suggest a deration value in order to
adjust the power. In electronics, devices have derating curves in order to
prevent damages at given temperatures" (Ans. 17).
We find that Appellants have the better position. While Appellants
acknowledge that "[ e ]lectronics may have deration curves" (Reply Br. 3 ),
the Examiner provides insufficient evidence that deration curves are an
obvious or necessary element of a power limit calculation in the obvious
combination.
B. 35 US. C. § 103 (a) over Pittaro, Qin, and Miller
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
combine Pittaro and Qin et al[.] with Miller by determining a
type of tissue as a function of acoustic response to the acoustic
energy and determine a second power as a function of the tissue
type and the first power limit; in order to maximize or optimize
detection resolution [see 0087, 0016, Qin et al[.]] and to
maximize system performance and to optimize the acoustic
power levels within imaging situation.
(Ans. 10.)
16
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion that Pittaro, Qin, and Miller
render the claims prima facie obvious?
Findings of Fact
18. Miller teaches
Upon detection of systole by a detector (21 ), a master
controller (20) adjusts a transmit level control (36) to cause a
transducer array (2) to transmit ultrasound waves with a high
acoustic output approaching the mechanical index FDA limit
with sufficient dwell time between HAO frames to limit the
temporal average below the FDA limit.
(Miller Abstract; see also Ans. 7-9.)
19. Miller teaches
The ultrasound wave penetration of current day diagnostic
ultrasound machines when performing color flow imaging is
compromised by FDA regulation. The FDA regulates the
acoustic power output from diagnostic ultrasound imaging
machines to avoid the possibility of undesirable effects in the
body due to cavitation and heating. These effects are regulated
by means of limits on MI (Mechanical Index), and ISPTA
(Intensity Spatial Peak Temporal (time) Average), respectively.
Ultrasound waves typically are applied to a subject by holding
the face of a transducer against the skin of the subject. The
temperature of the transducer face is limited for safety. When
performing color flow imaging, an ultrasound imaging system
typically reaches the ISPT A and probe temperature limits before
reaching the MI limits. As a result, the system limits the transmit
current to a level much lower than would be required to avoid the
MI limit. The current limitation compromises the system's
ability to image deep vessels where the limited transmit signal is
highly attenuated.
(Miller 1:9-29; see also Ans. 7-9.)
20. Miller teaches
17
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
the preferred embodiment improves the penetration of the
ultrasound waves while complying with mechanical index,
temperature, and intensity spatial peak temporal average
specifications. The improvement is provided by transmitting
first ultrasound waves with a first power toward a portion of the
subject in response to a first command, and receiving first
reflected ultrasound waves from the subject in response to the
first ultrasound waves. Second ultrasound waves with a second
power less than the first power also are transmitted toward the
portion of the subject in response to a second command, and
second reflected ultrasound waves are received from the subject
in response to the second ultrasound waves. The transmitting
and receiving are preferably accomplished with a transducer
array. A first set of signals is generated in response to the first
reflected ultrasound waves and a second set of signals is
generated in response to the second reflected ultrasound waves,
preferably by an ultrasound receiver.
(Miller 1:43-61; see also Ans. 7-9.)
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 2-18; FF 1-20) and agree that the
claims are obvious over Pittaro, Qin, and Miller. We address Appellants'
arguments below.
Claim 13
Appellants contend that "Qin, et al. do not determine a power as a
function of the type of tissue" and that "Qin, et al. measure the attenuation,
but do not feed that information back for determining the power" (App. Br.
13). We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above (see also Ans.
18). As already noted, it is the combination of Pittaro, Qin, and Miller that
render the claim obvious, not Qin alone.
Appellants contend that
18
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
Miller provides power interleaving of transmissions (col.
6, lines 17-31; and Figure 4). The resulting frames are used for
generating their own images. The type of tissue is not used in a
feedback to increase the power. There is no teaching that the
type of tissue results in greater power.
(App. Br. 14)
We do not find this argument persuasive. As the Examiner explains,
"Miller was used to disclose transmitting first ultrasound waves with a first
power and a second ultrasound waves with a second power less than the first
power [see column 1 lines 48---60]" (Ans. 18; FF 18-20).
Claim 15
Appellants argue that "Miller, the added reference, is not cited for the
change in deration value" (App. Br. 15). We find this argument persuasive
for the same reason as already discussed above.
C. 35 US.C. § 103(a) over Pittaro, Qin, Miller, and Wilson
Appellants present no additional argument based on the teachings of
Wilson, and rely on the same arguments addressed above. For the reasons
discussed above, therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 18.
With regards to Appellants' remaining contentions, we are not
persuaded for the reasons indicated by the Examiner (see Ans. 2-18).
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pittaro and Qin. Claims 2--4, 6, 8, and 9 fall with
claim 1.
We reverse the rejection of claims 5, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pittaro and Qin.
19
Appeal2014-008217
Application 12/174,514
We affirm the rejection of claims 7, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pittaro, Qin, and Miller. Claims 14, 16, and 17 fall
with claim 13.
We reverse the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Pittaro, Qin, and Miller.
We affirm the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pittaro, Qin, Miller, and Wilson.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
20