Ex Parte RobinsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201612740292 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) 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. 12/740,292 04/28/2010 Brent S. Robinson 2007P01652WOUS 7409 24737 7590 12/29/2016 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue GUPTA, VANI Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3777 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRENT S. ROBINSON Appeal 2015-001599 Application 12/740,292 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—9, 11—19 and 21—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-001599 Application 12/740,292 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to transducer assemblies including multiple imaging transducer arrays. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An ultrasonic transducer assembly, comprising: a housing, wherein the housing includes a first end and a second end, the second end being different from and opposite the first end; a plurality of discrete ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays within said housing, wherein a first discrete ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer array is adjacent the first end and a second discrete ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer array is adjacent the second end, and wherein each of the plurality of discrete ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays are different discrete ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays; a transducer controller assembly within said housing and in electrical communication with each of said plurality of ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays; a communications assembly within said housing and in electrical communication with said transducer controller assembly; and a selector operable to indicate a selected one of said plurality of ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays to said transducer controller assembly, wherein said transducer controller assembly provides transmit waveform data received by said communications assembly to said selected one of said plurality of ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays, said transducer controller assembly providing transducer signals from said selected one of said plurality of ultrasonic image data acquisition transducer arrays to said communications assembly. 2 Appeal 2015-001599 Application 12/740,292 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 6—9, 21—23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerwin (US 2007/0016058 Al, pub. Jan. 18, 2007), Hossack (US 5,769,079, iss. June 23, 1998) and Blakley (US 2005/0022601 Al, pub. Feb. 3, 2005). Claims 11—19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerwin, Hossack, Blakely and Hwang et al. (WO 00/30540, pub. June 2, 2000, “Hwang”). OPINION Although each of the independent claims are separately argued, Appellant recognizes (App. Br. 12, 15, and 19) they essentially repeat the same arguments, based on the same claim language, in each case. Appellant’s arguments are concisely summarized on page 8 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant first contends that the Examiner proposed obvious modification to, in view of Blakley, use “different” transducer arrays in Kerwin, would render Kerwin and/or Hossack inoperable for their intended purpose.1 App. Br. 8. Appellant also contends Blakley does not teach or suggest using two different transducer arrays. App. Br. 8. At the outset, we note that the independent claims require the transducer arrays to be both “discrete” and “different.” The claims do not require the arrays to be of different types, as Appellant repeatedly argues. App. Br. 8—10, 13, 16, and 20. According to the Specification, the “arrays could be of different types, have different operating characteristics, and/or 1 Hossack is cited by the Examiner regarding the array location—an uncontested determination. 3 Appeal 2015-001599 Application 12/740,292 have different modes of operation. Spec. 4:20-22. However, the Specification makes clear the arrays could be of the same type. Spec. 9:19— 20. The Specification indicates that among other things, “scan plane orientation” is considered an operating characteristic. Spec. 5:9-11. Thus, the Kerwin and Hossack arrays, which have different scan plane orientations (see Kerwin Fig. 5; Hossack Fig. 1), are “different” according to the express usage of that term in Appellant’s own Specification. In any case, we are not apprised of error under the Examiner’s reading of the claims. The Examiner correctly points out the absence of any evidentiary support for Appellant’s assertion that the Kerwin and Hossack arrays must be the same in order to achieve the desired results. Ans. 12 (“multiple transducer arrays, each of different configurations, are capable of producing similar images or images with shared characteristics.”). Appellants do not cite to any specific portion of Kerwin in support of this assertion or provide any technical reasoning to indicate why Kerwin’s device, or biplane probes, generally, must employ identical arrays. See App. Br. 9. As the Examiner again correctly points out, the cited portion of Hossack (App. Br. 10 (citing Hossack col. 2,11. 30-43)) merely describes the arrays as separate and does not specifically indicate whether they have any specific similarities. The Examiner is correct in that it is the function, the ability to obtain the desired images, which is critical in both Kerwin and Hossack and not the specific type of transducer array used. Ans. 12—14. As Blakely undisputedly discloses, various types of transducers may be selected depending on the particular situation to obtain the desired imagery. See Final Act. 3 (citing Blakely para. 13). Appellant’s attack on Blakely is that it lacks teachings for which Kerwin and Hossack are cited, two arrays. App. Br. 11. The 4 Appeal 2015-001599 Application 12/740,292 Examiner correctly characterizes this as an individual attack without regard for the combined teachings of the cited art. Ans. 14. “Non-obviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually when the rejection is predicated upon the teachings of a combination of references.” See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The Examiner provides a thorough and comprehensive analysis concerning the issues raised by Appellant. We adopt the entirety of the Examiner’s analysis in this regard (Ans. 12—15) as our own. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation