Ex Parte Halmann et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2013

11044401 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013)

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