Ex Parte Yoshizawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

12246053 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/246,053 10/06/2008
23389 7590 05/24/2016
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fukashi Yoshizawa
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.
23393 5343
EXAMINER
SANDS, DA VINK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3769
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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):
Docket@SSMP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FUKASHI YOSHIZAWA
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 8-15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies "OLYMPUS CORPORATION" as the real party
in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention relates to "a living body observation system
and a method of driving a living body observation system including a power
section having a battery or the like." (Spec. 1.)
Illustrative Claim2
8. A living body observation system comprising:
a living body information acquiring apparatus including:
a living body information acquiring section for
acquiring living body information in a living body;
a wireless transmission section for wirelessly
transmitting the living body information to outside of the living
body;
a power section including a battery for supplying
driving power of the living body information acquiring section
and the wireless transmission section;
a magnetic field detecting section for detecting an
alternating-current magnetic field with gradual change of
frequency from outside by a resonant circuit and outputting a
detection result as an electric signal; and
a power supply control section for controlling a
supply state of the driving power supplied from the power
section to the living body information acquiring section and the
wireless transmission section based on the electric signal; and
a magnetic field generating section for generating an
alternating-current magnetic field with gradual change of
frequency, within frequencies which cover a variation in a
resonant frequency of the resonant circuit, outside the living
body information acquiring apparatus.
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 14-18 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
Fryer
Dinn
Hasegawa
Boudaoud
Lenaerts
References
US 3,621,290 Nov. 16, 1971
US 2004/0196605 Al Oct. 7, 2004
US 2006/0252987 Al Nov. 9, 2006
US 2007/0000321 Al Jan. 4, 2007
"An inductive power link for a wireless
endoscope", Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 22
(2007) 1390-1395.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasegawa, Dinn, and Boudaoud. (Final
Action 3.)
The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hasegawa, Dinn, Boudaoud, and Frye. (Id. at 8.)
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hasegawa, Dinn, Boudaoud, and Lenaerts. (Id. at 9.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 8 is directed to a system comprising an apparatus
that includes "a living body information acquiring section," "a wireless
transmission section," and "a power section including a battery for supplying
driving power of the living body information acquiring section and the
wireless transmission section." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
Hasegawa discloses an apparatus (i.e., an endoscope capsule) including these
three sections required by independent claim 8. (See Final Action 3--4.)
Independent claim 8 also requires "a power supply control section for
controlling a supply state of the driving power supplied from the power
section to the living body information acquiring section and the wireless
3
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
transmission section." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that "Dinn
discloses a system for extending the battery life of deployed devices or
instruments through the use of a magnetic inductive switch reacting to the
appropriate AC magnetic field." (Final Action 4.) And the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to use such a magnetic inductive
switch in Hasegawa's capsule "to extend the battery life of the capsule."
(Id.)
Independent Claim 8 additionally requires "a magnetic field
generating section for detecting an alternating-current magnetic field with
gradual change of frequency from outside by a resonant circuit" and "a
magnetic field generating section for generating an alternating-current
magnetic field with gradual change of frequency." (Claims App.) As
discussed above, the Examiner finds that Dinn teaches a magnetic inductive
switch that reacts to alternating current magnetic fields. (See Final
Action 4.) More particularly, a circuit 30 in Dinn's switch has a specific
predetermined resonant frequency (see Dinn i-f 25), and Dinn's device "is
activated when it receives a transmission of a moderately large AC magnetic
field at the predetermined frequency" (id. i-f 20). However, as acknowledged
by the Examiner, Dinn does not teach that its generated alternating-current
magnetic field changes gradually in frequency. (See Final Action 4.)
The Examiner finds that Boudaoud teaches a circuit having a "specific
resonant frequency" and teaches a calibration method involving "sweeping
the transmitted operating frequency." (Final Action 4.) In Boudaoud, the
magnetic field generated during operation of a liquid-level-sensing device
has a "constant frequency." (Boudaoud i-f 50.) But during Boudaoud's
calibration method, a controller "varies the operating frequency (sweeping
4
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
the frequency from low to high or from high to low) in order to find the
resonant frequency of the series-resonant circuit." (Id. i-f 53.) The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to use "the sweeping transmitted
frequency taught in the calibration method of Boudaoud in the AC magnetic
field generation of the inductive switch of Dinn" in order to compensate for
certain dimensional variations. (Final Action 4.)
In other words, in the Examiner's proposed combination of the prior
art, the modified version of Hasegawa's endoscope capsule contains a living
body information acquiring section, a wireless transmission section, a power
section, a power supply control section, and a magnetic-field detector; and a
sweeping-frequency calibration is performed by a magnetic-field generator
for this endoscope capsule. The Examiner finds that the magnetic-field
detector would detect the generated sweeping-frequency magnetic field
"while the swept frequency matches the particular tuned frequency [of the
detector's resonant circuit 30]." (Final Action 2-3.) And Dinn teaches that
circuit 30 selectively couples a load (e.g., the capsule's living body
information acquiring section and wireless transmission section) to a battery
(e.g., the capsule's power section) in response to this particular tuned
frequency. (See Dinn i-f 24.)
The Appellant argues that "[i]n Boudaoud, since the material which
receives application of magnetic field is fuel, the operation or state of the
apparatus which receives the magnetic field is not controlled by change of
operating frequency in Boudaoud." (Appeal Br. 10.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because, even if the
Appellant's assertions are accurate, it is not aligned with Examiner's
5
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
proposed combination of the prior art. 3 The Examiner expressly explains
that "the only aspect of Boudaoud that is relied upon in the current rejection"
is its disclosure of "a generator that is generating a field with a frequency
that varies throughout a range of frequencies in order to hit the exact
resonant frequency of a resonant circuit" and "the reason for performing
[the] frequency sweep." (Advisory Action 2.) As discussed above, in the
Examiner's proposed combination of the prior art, the device which receives
the magnetic field is the modified version of Hasegawa's endoscope capsule.
The Appellant does not adequately address why the operation or state of this
endoscope capsule would not be controlled (i.e., driving power would not be
supplied to the capsule's living body information acquiring section and/or
wireless transmission section) when the swept frequency matches the
predetermined frequency of the capsule's magnetic-field-detecting circuit.
The Appellant also argues that, in contrast to Boudaoud, the claimed
system "does not rely on prior detection of a resonance frequency of the
antenna, calibration of the resonance frequency, and controlling a magnetic
field generating device to generate a magnetic field at a fixed frequency to
control a supply state of driving power supplied from the power section to
the living body information acquiring section." (Reply Br. 3.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because, even if the Appellant's contentions are
correct, this only establishes that independent claim 8 may read on a system
that does not require calibration. The Appellant does not adequately address
3 See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of
references").
6
Appeal2014-003892
Application 12/246,053
why independent claim 8 cannot also encompass a system calibrated by a
sweeping-frequency method as proposed by the Examiner. The Appellant
does not, for example, point with particularity to claim language precluding
the recited magnetic field generating section from also generating a
magnetic field at a fixed frequency (e.g., after completion of calibration).
As the Appellant does not argue that the Examiner otherwise errs in
the rejection of independent claim 8, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
this claim. The Appellant does not advance additional and/ or separate
arguments with respect to independent claims 18 and 19 and dependent
claims 9-15 (see Appeal Br. 10), and so they fall with independent claim 8.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-15, 18, and 19.
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
7