Ex Parte Kann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13913580 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/913,580 06/10/2013 Peter Ulrik Kann
23266 7590 08/01/2018
DRIGGS, HOGG, DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., LP.A.
38500 CHARDON ROAD
DEPT. DLBH
WILLOUGBY HILLS, OH 44094
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.
ANA1175-US
(BKM107503)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6756
EXAMINER
MCDONALD, KATHERINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
usptocommunications@driggslaw.com
carole@driggslaw.com
mwheeler@driggslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER ULRIKKANN
(APPLICANT: B-KMEDICALAPS)
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580 1
Technology Center 3700
BeforeDONALDE. ADAMS, JAMES A. WORTH,and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims 11, 13-25, and
27-37 (Final Act. 2 1). Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies "Analogic Corporation" as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 2).
2 Office Action mailed April 8, 2016.
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosure "relates to ultrasound and more particular[ly]
to identification of one or more images to display and the display of the
identified one or more images, and is described with particular application to
an ultrasound imaging system" (Spec. 1 ). Claim 11 is representative and
reproduced below:
11. A method, comprising:
displaying a set of two or more images of a plurality of
images in a row displayed on an image display region of a
touch screen keyboard of an ultrasound imaging system,
wherein each displayed image has a visible boundary;
displaying a different set of two or more images of the
plurality of images in the row on the image display region of
the touch screen keyboard by scrolling through the plurality of
nnages;
moving an object from the boundary of one of the
plurality of images displayed with the touch screen keyboard in
a frrst direction, which generates a frrst signal;
receiving the frrst signal from the touch screen keyboard,
wherein the frrst signal indicates the one of the plurality of
images is to be displayed with a display monitor of the
ultrasound imaging system, wherein the touch screen keyboard
and the display monitor are separate devices; and
displaying the one of the plurality of images with the
display monitor in response to the frrst signal.
(App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).)
2
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
The claims stand rejected as follows: 3
Claims 11-25 and 27-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pusateri, 4 PanasonicUK,5 and
Nadadur. 6
Claims 17, 18, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, Nadadur, and
Steinle. 7
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pusateri, PanasonicUK, Nadadur, andRoundhill. 8
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Pusateri discloses a " [ m ]ulti-touch sensing device for use with
radiological workstations and methods of use," wherein
[t]he multi-touch sensing device may be capable of displaying
radiological images, the device having a touch screen
communicatively coupled with the radiological workstation via
a controller, the touch screen adapted to display a work area
that includes at least one of a first sensing area adapted to
receive touch gestures from a first hand of a user and a second
3 Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 11, 13-25, and27-37 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) (see Advisory Action 2; cf Final Act. 2-3).
4 Pusateri, US 2011/0113329 Al, published May 12, 2011.
5 "Panasonic Smart VIERA-Swipe and Share," available at
https://www. you tube. com/watch?v=4Sbnv3tXJY8.
6 Nadadur et al., US 2004/0267122 Al, published Dec. 30, 2004.
7 Steinle et al., US 2009/0021475 Al, published Jan. 22, 2009.
8 Roundhill, US 6,516,215 Bl, issued Feb. 4, 2003.
3
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
sensing area adapted to receive touch gestures from a second
hand of the user.
(Pusateri, Abstract; see generally Final Act. 3--4.)
FF 2. Pusateri's Figure 2 is reproduced below:
.,,.---. 200
f::.::C::::::__~
I ----~ /--=~· r1r==1
1_\~JL~tlJ
,,,----...,
210 205
0 Worklist
,. c~) (---\
-~-,« \\ \ )
[' \\ \ / mi ) L_J "' \~ / , ,
) J / ~ ~ ~ ( tutwiirr1,~ / ( ]~3} ,i,;od,y, 2 •\ugi,,; 2,:c \ '\' \ \ ~-~; / \\~-~
I I \ \
:FIG. 2
Pusateri' s "FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a multi-touch sensing device
[205, which may include a touch screen 21 OJ and two high-resolution
monitors [200] displaying radiological images" (Pusteri ,r 7; see also id.
,r,r 25 and 27; Final Act. 4 (Examiner finds that Pusteri discloses that "the
touch screen keyboard 205 and the display monitor[ s] 200 are separate
devices")).
FF 3. Examiner fmds:
Panasonic UK, drawn to a smartphone-TV interfacing, teaches
the moving an object from a boundary of the image displayed
4
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
with the touch screen keyboard ( smartphone) in a frrst direction
( towards the top of the smartphone) (0: 1 O); receiving the frrst
signal from the touch screen keyboard ( smartphone ), which
generates a frrst signal (0:10-0:11), wherein the frrst signal
indicates the one of the plurality of images is to be displayed
(0:10, the round blue "play" button on thumbnail being
dragged) with a display monitor (TV), wherein the touch screen
keyboard ( smartphone) and display monitor (TV) are separate
devices.
(Final Act. 4.)
FF 4. Nadadur discloses, inter alia, an "ultrasound system [that] comprises
... a display device [] ( which displays [a] graphical user interface []) ... and
a user interface [], such as a keyboard, trackball, mouse, etc." (N adadur
,r 11; see generally Final Act. 5---6)
FF 5. Nadadur's Figure 1 is reproduced below:
:~: -/~ T~::_::] I
i • ~
~ : ;:
; . ~ i
~ ---~ ~ '"""~-: l
~ '' .,., ,.., ............ -..... ~ ~ : ':: ;----.. ~ ~-·~i j
L. ..."T'.,..T" ... .' ;
[:tt t:S j "" ---n l'\=n ,-......-....~~--~~~-~~'-'-'-!
2£Xi , [Jj Y 1· ',
~' f""' _. ,, 310 ·t · ,] o lt,,,t tCJJ 1 1 ,. S -· .
i voLuME .,,..,/ rFFX) f'
[J y ' ~ 3.25)
-_g g I:~~;_:---~; /-j~~~
Trn.HM.lt,MLS t H~AR.'n;,L,'1' (OH 1'1~1E) ,,E;Al,,'6EAT (M TlME)
I
Nadadur's FIG. 1 illustrates a graphical "user interface 10"9 that "comprises
four display areas 100, 200, 300, and 400," wherein "[a] plurality of image
9 See N adadur ,r 11 ("graphical user interface 1 O") ).
5
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
frames 210 [ that comprise thumbnail images] of the medical image 110 are
displayed in ... display area 200" (Nadadur ,r,r 8 and 12; see generally Final
Act. 5---6).
FF 6. N adadur discloses that
if the thumbnails exceed a preset number, the [graphical] user
interface 10 displays a new page and shows the new thumbnails
being created" and "a scrollbar appears (e.g., on the right side
of ... display area 200 between ... display area 200 and ...
display area 300) to allow the user to navigate to previous or
next pages.
(Nadadur,r 13; see generally Final Act. 5---6.)
FF 7. Examiner relies on Steinle to disclose methods of rotating displayed
images (see Final Act. 10).
FF 8. Examiner finds that the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, and
Nadadur fails to disclose a "display monitor fixed to a support and[]
configured to rotate relative to [a] support, and further comprising rotating
the display monitor relative to [a] support" and relies on Roundhill to make
up for this deficiency in the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, and
Nadadur (Final Act. 11 ).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, and N adadur,
Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellant's invention was made, it
would have been prima facie obvious to use the gestures disclosed by
Panasonic UK with the method disclosed by Pusateri,
in order to mimic a natural gesture that one would have if they
were moving data using connected pieces ofhardware ... [to a]
large display, or back from [ a ]large display, in a way that would
allow for the easy visualization of the images or videos, as
recognized by Panasonic UK ... [and] to include the
thumbnail[] display and scrolling selection area ofNadadur, in
6
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
order to allow for the user to scroll to previous pages of
thumbnails even when the ultrasound system is in an
acquisition mode, while the thumbnails of the live acquisition
stream act as bookmarks to help the user easily and quickly
access data acquired at different times, as recognized by
Nadadur.
(Final Act. 5---6; see Ans. 3 ("Examiner is relying upon N adadur to teach the
specific items being displayed on the touch screen keyboard"); Ans. 3--4.)
We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains, notwithstanding Examiner's assertion to the
contrary, "Nadadur does not disclose or suggest scrolling through paginated
groups of thumbnails displayed on any part of the user interface keyboard"
(Reply Br. 3). We agree. Nadadur, at best, discloses thumbnail images on a
display, i.e., a graphical user interface, which Nadadurdistinguishes from a
user interface, e.g., "a keyboard, trackball, mouse, etc." (see FF 4---6).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Examiner's assertion that N adadur
discloses "a plurality of images 210 in a row displayed on an image display
region 200 of a touch screen keyboard" (Final Act. 5; see also Final Act. 5-
6).
We also agree with Appellant's assertion that because:
Pusateri discloses a workstation with high-resolution monitors
200 and a multi-touch sensing device (keyboard) 205. Nadadur
discloses an ultrasound system with a display device [] and a
user interface (keyboard) []. At most, it might have been
obvious to display the graphical user interface 10 of N adadur
via the high-resolution monitors 200 of Pusateri as Nadadur
teaches displaying the graphical user interface 10 via the
display device [], not the user interface []. The user could then
scroll through the thumbnails as indicated by the Office with
the graphical user interface 10 displayed on [Pusateri' s] high-
resolution monitors 200. However, it would not have [been]
obvious to the skilled artisan to also structurally reconstruct and
7
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
redesign the multi-touch sensing device 205 of Pusateri to
display images for the purported reason [provided by
Examiner].
(App. Br. 4--5; see also Reply Br. 2-3; FF 2, 5, and 6.) See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("rejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness").
In addition, we agree with Appellant's explanation that although
Examiner relies on Panasonic UK to suggest the use of hand gestures to share
images from one device with another, Panasonic UK allows a device
containing images to share those images with a device that does not have the
images, which is unnecessary in the systems disclosed by Pusateri and
Nadadur (see Ans. 5; see also Reply Br. 3). To the contrary, unlike the
television of Panasonic UK, the Pusateri and N adadur systems "already have
the images stored therein to display ... on the high-resolution monitors 200
and the display device [respectively]" and, therefore, "do[] not need the
Panasonic Smart VIERA Swipe and Share software application [ disclosed
by Panasonic UK] to display images on its monitor because it already has the
images to display, unlike the television in PanasonicUK" (see App. Br. 5; cf
Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4 (Examiner asserts that "the fact that Pusateri
already has images to display on its monitors, whereas the television in
Panasonic UK does not. .. is [] moot," because Examiner relies on
"Panasonic UK . .. for the moving of an object on a touch screen in a fl rst
direction, in order to generate a first signal") (emphasis added); FF 3).
In sum, for the reasons set forth above, we fmd that Examiner failed
to establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a conclusion of
8
Appeal2017-006576
Application 13/913,580
obviousness. See Kahn, 441 F.3dat 988. In this regard, we agree with
Appellant's contention that Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis
on this record to support a conclusion that either of Steinle or Roundhill
make up for the deficiencies in the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK,
and Nadadur (see App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4--5; cf FF 7-8).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 11-25 and 27-36under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, and N adadur
is reversed.
The rejection of claims 17, 18, and23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, Nadadur, and
Steinle is reversed.
The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pusateri, Panasonic UK, N adadur, and Roundhill is
reversed.
REVERSED
9