Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

12847041 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/847,041 07/30/2010
6147 7590 10/19/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Warren Lee
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.
244268-1 3127
EXAMINER
IMPINK, BRADLEY GERALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3768
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WARREN LEE
Appeal2014-006840 1
Application 12/847,041 2
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16-18.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Sept. 25,
2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 14, 2014) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 25, 2012).
2 Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
3 Claims 10, 11, and 15 are canceled, and claim 19 is withdrawn. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006840
Application 12/847,041
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to an ultrasound transducer
assembly, and more particularly to a compact ultrasound transducer
assembly having adjustable focal depth, and methods of making and using
the same." Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A compact ultrasound transducer assembly,
compnsmg:
a compact housing comprising a shaft;
a therapy transducer disposed in the compact housing;
an interchangeable Fresnel lens having a flat surface and a
structured surface, wherein the Fresnel lens is disposed in the
compact housing so that the flat surface of the Fresnel lens faces
the therapy transducer, wherein the structured surface of the
Fresnel lens is disposed in a direction away from the therapy
transducer, and wherein the Fresnel lens is removably coupled to
the therapy transducer, the compact housing, or both; and
an imaging transducer removably disposed through the
shaft in the housing, wherein the imaging transducer extends till
the therapy transducer, or wherein the imaging transducer
extends beyond the therapy transducer.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Detwiler (US 4,936,303, iss. June 26, 1990) and Wang
(US 6,685,639B1, iss. Feb. 3, 2004).4
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Detwiler, Wang, and Fresnel Lenses (Fresnel Technologies, Inc. 2003).
4 We treat the Examiner's reference to canceled claim 15 as inadvertent
error. See Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2014-006840
Application 12/847,041
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 2--8 and 12-14
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Wang does not
teach or suggest "an imaging transducer removably disposed through the
shaft in the housing, wherein the imaging transducer extends till the therapy
transducer, or wherein the imaging transducer extends beyond the therapy
transducer," as recited in claim 1. Br. 7-10. In this regard, Appellant argues
the removability aspect of the imaging transducer is not taught by Wang. Id.
Appellant asserts that Wang "merely discloses mounting the imaging probe
on an axis of the therapy probe," "suggests permanently fixing the position
of the focal region of the therapy probe," and "also suggests fixing the
position of the imaging probe." Id. at 8-9. Appellant maintains that "Wang,
at best, suggests an arrangement where an imaging probe is permanently
mounted on the therapy probe," and does not "even remotely suggest an
imaging transducer removably disposed through the shaft in the housing."
Id. at 9.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive at least because the Examiner
finds that Detwiler discloses an imaging transducer removably disposed
through the shaft. Ans. 8 (quoting Detwiler, col. 7, 11. 52-53 ("[t]he imaging
transducer 29 may be removed and replaced."); citing Detwiler Fig. 4, col. 7,
11. 43-54)); see also Final Act. 7. The Examiner relies on Wang for
describing that the imaging transducer extends till or beyond the therapy
transducer. See Ans. 8. And the Examiner determines that the combination
of Detwiler and Wang renders obvious "an imaging transducer removably
disposed through the shaft in the housing, wherein the imaging transducer
3
Appeal2014-006840
Application 12/847,041
extends till the therapy transducer, or wherein the imaging transducer
extends beyond the therapy transducer," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 8. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.").
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2-8 and 12-14, which are not argued separately.
Independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17 and 18
Appellant argues that independent claim 16 is patentable for at least
the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Br. 10. We are not
persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 16 for the same reasons. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 18, which depends from claim 16, and
is not argued separately.
Dependent Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the Fresnel lens has a
thickness between I mm and 20 mm. Appellant argues that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Fresnel "fails to
teach or suggest the use of Fresnel lens in a transducer assembly as recited in
claim 1." Appellant's argument is not persuasive of Examiner error, at least
because Fresnel was not relied on by the Examiner for describing the use of
Fresnel lens in a transducer assembly.
4
Appeal2014-006840
Application 12/847,041
Appellant further argues that Fresnel fails to cure the deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim
9.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5