Ex Parte Halmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201311044401 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte MENACHEM HALMANN and SHINICHI AMEMIYA __________ Appeal 2011-012702 Application 11/044,401 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, STEPHEN WALSH, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a method of ultrasound imaging and a system for performing ultrasound imaging. The Patent Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to “a method and system for configuring a personal digital assistant (PDA) device as an integral part of a portable, hand-held ultrasound system.” (Spec. [0003].) Appeal 2011-012702 Application 11/044,401 2 Claims 27-52 are on appeal. Independent claims 27 and 39 are representative and read as follows: 27. A method of ultrasound imaging, said method comprising: attaching a detachable transducer head to a signal processing module to form a hand-held probe assembly that includes said signal processing module and said detachable transducer head; receiving ultrasound signals with said hand-held probe assembly from a region of interest to generate a plurality of received digital signals within said hand-held probe assembly; transmitting said plurality of received digital signals to an off-the- shelf commercially available personal digital assistant (PDA) having a touch-screen display over a standard digital interface; selecting an imaging mode from a menu on the touch-screen display of said PDA; digitally beamforming said plurality of received digital signals within said PDA to generate at least one beam of digital data corresponding to said region of interest; and creating and displaying an ultrasound image on said touch-screen display of said PDA. 39. A system for performing ultrasound imaging, said system comprising: a signal processing module for performing ultrasound signal processing; a detachable transducer head attaching to said signal processing module to form a handheld probe assembly; and an off-the-shelf commercially available personal digital assistant (PDA) having a touch screen display connecting to said hand-held probe assembly through a standard digital interface wherein said PDA performs ultrasound data processing functions including digital beamforming, and wherein said PDA creates and displays ultrasound images on said touch screen display. Appeal 2011-012702 Application 11/044,401 3 The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: • claims 27-41 and 43-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiang,1 Imran,2 Ogle,3 and Vara;4 • claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiang, Imran, Ogle, Vara, and Nigam5 or Zeger;6 and • claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiang, Imran, Ogle, Vara and George.7 OBVIOUSNESS For each of the obviousness rejections, the Examiner found that (a) Chiang disclosed an ultrasound imaging system comprising a hand-held scan head, having beam forming circuitry, coupled to a personal digital assistant (Ans. 4-5) and (b) Ogle taught a digital beam former located in a hand held enclosure (id. at 6). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined Chiang with Ogle “by using digital beam former; because the digital beam former has its greatest influence on the accuracy, resolution, and to increase the performance and reliability. Precision, stability and flexibility are the main advantages of digital signal processing.” (Ans. 6.) 1 US Patent No. 6,106,472 issued to Alice M. Chiang et al., Aug. 22, 2000. 2 US Patent No. 6,251,073 B1, issued to Mir A. Imran et al., Jun 26, 2001. 3 US Patent No. 5,817,024, issued to William R. Ogle et al., Oct. 6, 1998. 4 US Patent No. 6,063,030, issued to Albert Vara et al., May 16, 2000. 5 US Patent No. 4,043,181, issued to Anan K. Nigam, Aug. 23, 1977. 6 US Patent No. 4,428,237, issued to Andrew E. Zeger, Jan. 31, 1984. 7 US Patent No. 4,777,416 issued to Robert W. George, II et al., Oct. 11, 1988. Appeal 2011-012702 Application 11/044,401 4 Appellants argue, among other things, that Chiang disclosed its beam forming circuitry in the sensor housing of the stethoscope and not in its hand-held display device such as a personal digital assistant. (App. Br. 7.) Appellants assert that “[t]here simply is nothing in Chiang that describes, teaches, or suggests beamforming in a personal digital assistant.” (Id.) Further, Appellants assert that while Ogle disclosed a digital beam former located in its handheld device, the device is a specialized ultrasonic instrument and not an off-the-shelf PDA. (Id. at 7-8.) According to Appellants, the Examiner has not shown that the combined references teach or suggest “digitally beamforming said plurality of received digital signals within said PDA,” as recited in claim 27, or “an off-the-shelf commercially available personal digital assistant (PDA) having a touch screen display connecting to said hand-held probe assembly through a standard digital interface wherein said PDA performs ultrasound data processing functions including digital beamforming,” as recited in claim 39. (Id. at 8.) The Examiner responds by stating that “one skilled in the art at the time of the invention … could have been motivated to implement a digital beam former on a chip and into or within the laptop computer [i.e., or personal digital assistant] … to have a compact, light weight PDA with digital capability.” (Ans. 13.) However, the Examiner has not supported this reasoning with evidence. In particular, we do not find that the Examiner’s proposed modification would yield a compact, light weight PDA. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided sound reasoning why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Chiang by relocating its Appeal 2011-012702 Application 11/044,401 5 beam forming circuitry to within its PDA. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)(Obviousness rejections require some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to be sustained.). Accordingly, we reverse each of the obviousness rejections. SUMMARY We reverse each of the obviousness rejections. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation