Ex Parte Halmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201714274122 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2017) 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. 14/274,122 05/09/2014 Menachem Hal man n 121541-7 (13491US05) 7657 23446 7590 08/31/2017 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER BRUTUS, JOEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2017 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): mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MENACHEM HALMANN and SHINICHI AMEMIYA Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 Technology Center 3700 Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and RYAN H. FLAX, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a method and system for ultrasound imaging. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Statement of the Case Background “Traditional ultrasound systems are often large and bulky and do not lend themselves for ease of portability and tend to be expensive” (Spec. 14). 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as GE Medical Systems Global Technology Company, LLC (see App. Br. 2). 2 This Appeal is related to Appeals 2011-012702 (US 11/044,401) and 2016-005105 (US 14/015,252). Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 “A need exists for a small, inexpensive, highly portable ultrasound system employing existing technology that may be used quickly and easily for basic diagnosis in emergency situations” (Spec. 1 8). The Claims Claims 53—86 are on appeal. Independent claims 53 and 69 are representative and read as follows: 53. A method of ultrasound imaging, said method comprising: attaching a first detachable transducer head to a signal processing module to form a hand-held probe assembly that comprises said signal processing module and said first detachable transducer head; receiving ultrasound signals of a region of interest with said hand-held probe assembly to generate a plurality of received digital signals within said hand-held probe assembly; transmitting said plurality of received digital signals to a hand-held display assembly having a touch-screen display over a digital interface; digitally beamforming said plurality of received digital signals within said handheld display assembly 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 hand-held display assembly. 69. A system configured to perform ultrasound imaging, said system comprising: a hand-held probe assembly comprising: a signal processing module configured to perform ultrasound signal processing, and a detachable transducer head attaching to said signal processing module; and a hand-held display assembly having a touch screen display that connects to said hand-held probe assembly 2 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 through a digital interface, said hand-held display assembly configured to: perform ultrasound data processing functions including digital beamforming, and create and display ultrasound images on said touch screen display. The Issues A. The Examiner rejected claims 53, 54, 56, 58—60, 62—71, 74—76, and 78—86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle3 and Brock-Fisher4 (Ans. 3—7). B. The Examiner rejected claims 55, 57, 61, 73, and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle, Brock-Fisher, and Chiang5 (Ans. 7—8). C. The Examiner rejected claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle, Brock-Fisher, Chiang, and Kent6 (Ans. 8—10). Because the same issue is dispositive for all three rejections, we will consider the rejections together. The issue with respect to these rejections is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the prior art suggests the limitations of claims 53 and 69? Findings of Fact 1. Ogle teaches: [T]he ultrasound system, from the transducer through to a video output, is fabricated on four types of application specific integrated circuits (ASICs): a transmit/receive ASIC which is 3 Ogle et al., US 5,817,024, issued Oct. 6, 1998. 4 Brock-Fisher, US 6,497,661 Bl, issued Dec. 24, 2002. 5 Chiang et al., US 6,106,472, issued Aug. 22, 2000. 6 Kent, US 2003/0164820 Al, published Sept. 4, 2003. 3 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 connected to the elements of an array transducer, a front end ASIC which performs and controls transmit and receive beamforming with a plurality of delay channels, a digital signal processing ASIC which provides processing of the ultrasound signals such as filtering, and a back end ASIC which receives processed ultrasound signals and produces ultrasound image data. The image can be displayed on either a standard monitor or on a liquid crystal display (LCD). (Ogle 1:55-66). 2. Figure 1 of Ogle is reproduced below: FIG. 1 Figure 1 illustrates the “architecture of a hand-held ultrasound systen ... A transducer array 10 is used . . . Echoes received by the transmit/receive ASIC 20 are provided to the adjacent front end ASIC 30, which digitizes and 4 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 beamforms the echoes from the individual transducer elements into coherent scanline signals” (Ogle 2:40-65). 3. Ogle teaches: Other system packaging configurations will be readily apparent. For instance, the front end ASIC 30, the digital signal processing ASIC 40, and the back end ASIC 50 could be located in a common enclosure, with the beamformer of the front end ASIC connectable to different array transducers. This would enable different transducers to be used with the digital beamformer, digital filter, and image processor for different diagnostic imaging procedures. A display could be located in the same enclosure as the three ASICS, or the output of the back end ASIC could be connected to a separate display device. (Ogle 4:45-55). 4. Figure 4 of Ogle is reproduced below: 82 84 FIG. 4 Figure 4 illustrates a packaging configuration in which the ultrasound system is housed in two separate sections. A lower section 81 includes 5 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 the transducer array, the electronics through to a video signal output, and the user controls . . . The upper section 83 includes an LCD display 82 and a battery pack 88. The cable 90 couples video signals from the lower unit 81 to the upper unit for display. (Ogle 4:23-36). 5. Brock-Fisher teaches the “portable ultrasound diagnostic device 10 is embodied, for example, as a hand-held personal computer (H/PC) having an LCD touch screen, a keypad, and a communication channel (not shown)” (Brock-Fisher 2:63—66). 6. Brock-Fisher teaches “the portable ultrasound diagnostic device 10 includes a screen 12 where the user would be able to determine whether a process of collecting the diagnostic data is complete or whether the diagnostic data obtained is enough to make an adequate diagnosis of the treatment the patient would require” (Brock-Fisher 3:6—10). 7. Chiang teaches an ultrasound imaging system where “[d]ata from buffer memory 31 is forwarded through demodulation and log compression circuitry 40A to scan conversion circuitry 28 in the data processing unit 14” (Chiang 14:21—23). 8. Chiang teaches the “transmission channel can be a modem or wireless cellular communication channel or other known communication means” (Chiang 15:2-4). 9. Kent teaches: “In order to reduce the number of transducers required for an acoustic touchscreen, Adler . . . provide [s] a reflective array for reflecting portions of an acoustic wave along incrementally varying paths” (Kent 19). 6 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 Principle of Law A prima facie case for obviousness requires “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Analysis Appellants contend Even if Ogle disclosed an embodiment where a beamformer can be in the same enclosure as the display and in a separate enclosure from an array transducer, Ogle would still be incapable of teaching “generating a plurality of received digital signals within said hand-held probe assembly” that is separate and distinct from the handheld display assembly, and “transmitting said plurality of received digital signals to a hand-held display assembly,” as recited in Appellant’s independent claim 53; and, “a hand-held display assembly having a touch screen display that connects to said hand-held probe assembly through a digital interface,” as set forth in Appellant’s independent claim 69. (App. Br. 13). The Examiner disagrees because Oggle [sic Ogle] et al disclose attaching to said signal processing module [see fig 4, column 3 lines 44-45] and hand-held device connected to said hand-held probe assembly (transducer array) [see column 4 lines 23- 44 and figs 4] and by disclosing an interface that allows other modules and functions to be attached to or communicate with the hand-held ultrasound unit [see column 3 lines 43-45]. [Ogle] et al disclose an interface that allows other modules and functions to be attached to or communicate with the hand-held ultrasound unit [see column 3 lines 43-45]. [Ogle] et al disclose the instrument can be produced as a single unit or a two-part unit, one including a transducer, beamformer, and image processor 7 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 and the other including a display and power source for both units [see column 1 lines 44-50 and column 4 lines 13-15]. (Ans. 11). We find that Appellants have the better position. Claims 53 and 69 require an ultrasound device with two assemblies: (1) a “hand-held probe assembly” that includes a detachable transducer and signal processing module and which transmits digital signals (or requires a “digital interface” in claim 69) to (2) a “hand-held display assembly” that includes a display screen and which performs the digital beamforming step. The use of the term “detachable” in the claims, referring to the transducer head of the probe assembly, explicitly requires that the probe assembly is capable of physical separation from the display assembly, so that the ultrasound imager system cannot be a single integrated device. Whether the Examiner relies on Figure 4 or Figure 1 of Ogle, the Examiner has not established that Ogle (along with the other cited prior art) suggests an ultrasound device arranged as required by claims 53 and 59 (FF 2, 4). The ultrasound device in Figure 4 does have two assemblies, elements 81 and 83 where element 81 has a transducer and signal processing, but element 81 also performs digital beamforming (FF 4) and only sends a video signal over cable 90 to the display unit. As Appellants point out, the “front end ASIC 30 includes an analog- to-digital converter... so any signals transmitted from the transducer 10, 20 to the front end ASIC 30 are in analog format” (App. Br. 13; cf. FF 2). Because we interpret the claims as requiring two separate assemblies, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not identified a reason to modify Ogle so that the beamformer operates using digital signals 8 Appeal 2016-004371 Application 14/274,122 transmitted between a probe assembly and separate display assembly as required by claims 53 and 69 rather than the analog signals disclosed in figure 1 of Ogle. The Examiner does not identify any teachings in Brock-Fisher, Chiang, or Kent that address this issue. Conclusion of Law The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that the prior art suggests the limitations of claims 53 and 69. SUMMARY In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 53, 54, 56, 58—60, 62— 71, 74—76, and 78—86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle and Brock-Fisher. We reverse the rejection of claims 55, 57, 61, 73, and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle, Brock-Fisher, and Chiang. We reverse the rejection of claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ogle, Brock-Fisher, Chiang, and Kent. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation