Ex Parte Robinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2018

13126466 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/126,466 04/28/2011 Andrew L. Robinson
24737 7590 08/07/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2008P01655WOUS 3561
EXAMINER
KINNARD, LISA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW L. ROBINSON
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
Technology Center 3700
Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, JOHN G. NEW, and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-14 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and
reads as follows:
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
1. An ultrasonic probe comprising:
a transducer array comprising one or more transducer
elements; and
a microbeamformer integrated circuit including a
plurality of transmitter and receive channels selectively coupled
to the transducer elements, at least one microbeamformer
transmitter and receive channel of the plurality comprising:
a transmitter circuit having an output for
delivering a transducer drive signal , and operable to
deliver the drive signal in a controllably timed
relationship with other transmitter circuits;
a plurality of connection points between the
transmitter output and one or more transducer elements
by which the transmitter output is selectively coupled to
the one or more transducer elements to selectively
couple the transducer drive signal to at least one selected
transducer element;
a transmit/receive switch coupled to at least one
of the connection points; and
a receive channel coupled to the transmit/receive
switch.
Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection made by
Examiner:
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Freeman 2 in view of Kristoffersen. 3
II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view ofBrock-Fisher4, and further
in view of Petrofsky. 5
2 US 2006/0264747 Al published November 23, 2006.
3 US 2009/0005684 Al published January 1, 2009.
4 US 2005/0148874 Al published July 7, 2005
5 US 5,573,001 issued November 12, 1996.
2
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
III. Claims 6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Petrofsky, and further
in view of Lazenby. 6
IV. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Brock-Fisher, and further in
view of Scampini. 7
V. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Lazenby, in view of
Petrofsky, and further in view of Scampini.
VI. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Lazenby, in view of
Petrofsky, and further in view of Brock-Fisher.
Since all of these rejections rely upon the teachings of Freeman and
Kristoffersen regarding the ultrasonic probe having "a plurality of
connection points between the transmitter output and one or more transducer
elements," the same issue is dispositive for all of these rejections, so we will
consider the rejections together. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv)
Appellant contends that Freeman is missing a transmitter having an
output and a plurality of connection points between the transmitter output
and one or more transducer elements. Br. 9-10. Because the disclosure of
Kristoffersen "fails to make up for the deficiency of Freeman" the rejection
should be reversed. Br. 12.
6 US 2006/0241490 Al published October 26, 2006.
7 WO 2006/035384 Al published April 6, 2006.
3
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
Freeman's microbeam former is shown in Figure 1, reproduced
below:
'---------.----~J
20-\ •
FIG. 1
.
i
/
J
10
12 .,
Fig. 1 is a schematic depiction of a microbeamformer portion of an
ultrasonic transducer. Freeman ,r 37. Each patch 20 includes a plurality of
microbeamformer channels 22. Id. ,r 47. Each channel contains a
transmitter 24, a transducer 26, and a microbeam receiver 28. Id.
Examiner finds that Freeman discloses an ultrasonic probe having a
transducer array with one or more transducer elements. Final Act. 2-3
(citing Freeman ,r,r 7, 8, 16, 28, 30, 47, 51, 55, in addition Fig. 1 (item 26),
Fig. 3(items 46 and 48)); Ans. 3--4. Examiner acknowledges that "Freeman
does not explicitly disclose details regarding a transmit/receive switch or a
receive channel." Ans. 3; Final Act. 3. Examiner relies on the teachings of
4
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
Kristoffersen to disclose a transmit/receive switch. Ans. 4 ( citing
Kristoffersen ,r 54 ).
Examiner finds that
the claim refers to an ultrasonic probe having at least one
microbeamformer transmit and receive channel including a
transmitter having an output and a plurality of connection
points between the transmitter output and one or more
transducer elements. Since the claim discloses that the
transmitter output can be connected to one or more transducer
inputs this limitation would include a case of each transmitter
output coupled to receptive transducer inputs.
Ans. 18. Based on this interpretation Examiner concludes that the claims are
obvious over the combination of Freeman and Kristoffersen. See Id.
On this record we find that Appellant has the better position.
"[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim." CFMT,
Inc. v. Yieldup Int 'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( citing In re
Royka, 490 F.2d 981,985 (CCPA 1974)). Examiner's position is that the
claim language reciting "one or more transducer elements" reads on
Freeman's disclosure of a transmitter coupled to a transducer and coupled in
tum to receiver. We understand that Freeman discloses multiple channels
(22) in each patch (20), and each channel contains a transmitter output,
transducer, and receiver. See Freeman Fig. 1 (reproduced above). What is
missing, however, is the limitation of "a plurality of connection points"
between the transmitter output and the transducer element in each patch.
By way of comparison, Figure 2 of Appellants' Specification is
reproduced below:
5
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
Fig. 2
Appellants' Figure 2 depicts an embodiment of Appellants' claimed
invention showing a partial schematic and block diagram forming a first
transmitter and preamplifier combination which is switchable between two
transducer elements. Spec. 3. In Figure 2, the two output stages of the
pulser 28 are both coupled to switches 22 and 24 in the integrated circuit
chip. The switches are coupled to connection points for one or more (i.e., a
plurality of) transducer elements, shown in this example as bond pads 30a
and 30b. Spec. 6.
We agree with Appellant that Freeman does not disclose "a plurality
of connection points" either between a transmitter output and a single (one)
transducer or between a transmitter output and (multiple) transducers. See
Br. 9-10. Because Freeman does not disclose a plurality of connection
points and Examiner does not rely on Kristoffersen for showing such
connection points, we agree with Appellant that the rejection of the claims
based on the combination of Freeman and Kristoffersen must be reversed
because the proposed combination does not account for every claim
limitation.
6
Appeal2017-005557
Application 13/126,466
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of all claims.
REVERSED
7