Ex parte Motzer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 6, 2000

08632638 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 6, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WILLIAM P. MOTZER
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-1520
Application No. 08/632,638
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, BARRETT and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-23, 25-
29, 31-34, 36 and 37. Claims 38-40 have been allowed and claims 6, 19 and 24 have
been indicated by the examiner as being directed to allowable subject matter.
Appeal No. 1998-1520
Application No. 08/632,638
2
The invention is directed to a system for displaying and analyzing data obtained
from an ultrasonic scan of an object. More particularly, different display formats are
employed simultaneously. These formats may include a pulse echo format, A- and
B-scan displays and time of flight displays. An operator selects various portions of the
ultrasonic data displayed in any display and the other displays are automatically revised
based upon the operator’s selections.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A system for analyzing and displaying ultrasonic test data produced by an
ultrasonic test apparatus for a test part, the system comprising:
(a) a display for simultaneously displaying ultrasonic test data in at least
two display portions, including a first display portion and a second display
portion, each of said display portions displaying ultrasonic test data in a
format selected from the group consisting of an A-Scan, a B-Scan, a pulse
echo, and a time of flight format, said display presenting ultrasonic test data
in a manner such that locations on said display correspond to locations on
said test part;
(b) an input device responsive to an operator's input for selecting at least
one location on said first display portion wherein said at least one location
corresponds to a selection of the ultrasonic test data as displayed within
said first display portion, and producing display location data, wherein said
display location data can be produced a plurality of times in response to a
plurality of input selections by the operator; and
(c) control means coupled to said display and said input device for
receiving the display location data from said input device, determining
ultrasonic test data parameters corresponding to the display location
Appeal No. 1998-1520
Application No. 08/632,638
3
data, filtering out portions of the ultrasonic test data based on the
combination of the ultrasonic test data parameters and the format of said
second display portion, and for causing said second display portion to
update said display of ultrasonic data by displaying portions of the ultrasonic
test data that have not been filtered out, wherein said filtering and updating
of data can be done a plurality of times in response to a plurality of display
location data produced by said input device.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Green (Green '835) 4,097,835 Jun. 27, 1978
Green et al. (Green '347) 4,141,347 Feb. 27, 1979
Additionally, the examiner relies on admitted prior art [APA], based on page
1 through line 7 of page 3 of the instant specification.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-23, 25-29, 31-34, 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over either one of Green ‘835 or Green ‘347 in view of APA and
“obvious duplication of displayed data.”
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Each of independent claims 1, 9 and 20, in one form or another, requires the
selection, by an operator, of at least one location on a first display portion (the location
corresponding to a selection of ultrasonic test data as displayed within the first display
Appeal No. 1998-1520
Application No. 08/632,638
4
portion) and a control means for receiving the location data, determining ultrasonic test
data parameters corresponding to the display location data, filtering out portions of the test
data based on the test data parameters and the format of a second display portion and
causing the second display portion to update the display of ultrasonic data by displaying
portions of the ultrasonic test data that have not been filtered out.
As the examiner points out, either one of the Green references discloses a system
for analyzing and displaying ultrasonic test data where test data is simultaneously
displayed in at least two display portions. Further, Green ‘347 clearly shows, in Figure 5,
input devices responsive to an operator’s input. It might even be argued that the zoom
feature of Green ‘347 (pushbutton switch 90 in Figure 5) could be considered as “filtering
out portions of the ultrasonic test data.”
However, we agree with appellant, at page 10 of the principal brief, that “the Green
references do not provide an operator with the ability to select locations on the test data
display, filter the test data based upon the selected locations, or update the display data in
response to the selections performed by the operator.” Clearly, there is no such teaching
or suggestion in either of the Green references and the examiner has pointed to nothing in
these references that would convince us otherwise.
Appeal No. 1998-1520
Application No. 08/632,638
5
Since the Green references provide no teaching or suggestion of an operator
selecting locations on a first display portion and then filtering the data by a control
means based on the operator’s selection to provide an output of the filtered data in a
second display portion displaying the test data in a display format according to the
selected location, no prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the
examiner. We do not find that the APA or the examiner’s allegation of “obvious duplication
of displayed data” provides for the deficiencies of the Green references.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-23, 25-29, 31-34, 36 and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-1520
Application No. 08/632,638
6
CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON & KINDNESS
1420 Fifth Avenue
Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101