Ex Parte Schwartz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

10574184 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte GARY A. SCHWARTZ
__________

Appeal 2011-010875
Application 10/574,184
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Appeal 2011-010875
Application 10/574,184

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are drawn to an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging systems for
three dimensional scanning, and may be found in the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 18-21).
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 1-9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being rendered obvious by the combination of Seyed-Bolorforosh
1

and Powers
2
(Ans. 3).
II. Claims 10-13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being rendered obvious by the combination of Seyed-Bolorforosh
and Powers, as further combined with Ustuner
3
(Ans. 5).

We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellant’s arguments
that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning as our own. We also highlight the following.
Our mandate is to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.
In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims
that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

1
Seyed-Bolorforosh et al., US 5,797,846, issued Aug. 25, 1998.
2
Powers et al., US 2002/0045822 A1, published Apr. 18, 2002.
3
Ustuner et al., US 6,551,246 B1, issued Apr. 22, 2003.
Appeal 2011-010875
Application 10/574,184

3
Independent claims 1 and 9 are both drawn to an apparatus. Claim 1
includes the limitation of “wherein beams produced by the beamformer
exhibit a first point spread function when the volumetric region is scanned
with a first line density and a second point spread function when the
volumetric region is scanned with a second line density.” Claim 9 includes
the limitation of “wherein the beamformer utilizes a first aperture function
when the volumetric region is scanned with a first line density and a second
aperture function when the volumetric region is scanned with a second line
density.” We interpret the above wherein clauses as limiting the claims to
an apparatus that is capable of exhibiting two different point spread
functions (claim 1) or of utilizing two different aperture functions (claim 9).
The recitation that “a first point spread function when the volumetric region
is scanned with a first line density and a second point spread function when
the volumetric region is scanned with a second line density” or that “the
beamformer utilizes a first aperture function when the volumetric region is
scanned with a first line density and a second aperture function when the
volumetric region is scanned with a second line density” are then recitations
of intended use, as they do not further limit the structure of the claimed
apparatus.
Here, the Examiner finds that Seyed-Bolorforosh teaches all of the
elements of the apparatus of claims 1 and 9, except that Seyed-Bolorforosh
teaches a linear transducer array, and fails to teach a two-dimensional
transducer array (Ans. 3-5). The Examiner then relies on Powers, which
discloses a two-dimensional ultrasonic diagnostic imaging transducer in
Appeal 2011-010875
Application 10/574,184

4
order to acquire a three-dimensional imaging volume, to remedy that
deficiency (id. at 5).
In view of the claim interpretation set forth above, Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 9-10) that Seyed-Bolorforosh achieves a high frame rate
to fill in the spaces between the widely separated beams at the deeper
depths, whereas the instant invention does it by using a relaxed, broader
point spread functions, is not convincing. Appellants are arguing method
limitations, and Appellant does not point to how those methods limit the
claimed apparatus. “[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims
depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that
structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d
801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In that regard, we note that, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 6),
Seyed-Bolorforosh teaches that “the beam spacing for an optimum image is
determined by the beam width or lateral point spread function” (Seyed-
Bolorforosch, col. 1, ll. 60-62). According to Seyed-Bolorforosh, the
“lateral point spread function is determined by the product of the wavelength
and the F number,” wherein the “F number equals the focal depth divided by
the aperture” (id. at col. 1, ll. 62-67). Seyed-Bolorforosh also teaches that
the F number changes along the longitudinal and azimuthal axis, and that the
aperture size also changes (Seyed-Bolorforosh, Figures 3A and 3B, see also
col. 3, ll. 32-45). Thus, the apparatus of Seyed-Bolorforosh is capable of
exhibiting two different point spread functions (claim 1) or of utilizing two
different aperture functions (claim 9).
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2011-010875
Application 10/574,184

5
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc