KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

14368107 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
14/368,107 06/23/2014 Marco J. Daoura 2011P02054WOUS 6657
24737 7590 10/01/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
MEHL, PATRICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@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 MARCO J. DAOURA
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–16 and 21–32. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N. V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for interactive
display of ultrasound images. Spec. ¶1. Claim 9, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A medical imaging system, comprising:
an ultrasound probe configured to capture three
dimensional (3D) ultrasound data from a subject;
an ultrasound processing system comprising one or more
hardware processors configured by machine readable
instructions to generate live 3D images from the 3D ultrasound
data;
a 3D holographic display system configured to display the
live 3D images as a hologram suspended in space proximate to
the subject; and
a touchless input user interface configured to detect a
touchless input from a user and facilitate an image
transformation of the live 3D images in the hologram in response
to the touchless input,
wherein the touchless input comprises a detectable hand
gesture along a portion of a circumference of the hologram,
wherein the detectable hand gesture along the portion of
the circumference causes a corresponding rotation of the
hologram about one or more axes along a path that corresponds
to the detectable hand gesture such that the hologram rotationally
tracks a corresponding direction of the detectable hand gesture,
wherein, responsive to detecting the touchless input, the
touchless input user interface facilitates image transformation of
the live 3D images by transmitting a control signal to the
ultrasound probe to control a view of the ultrasound data
captured by the ultrasound probe.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Aritake US 5,589,957 Dec. 31, 1996
Mathew US 2006/0020202 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
3
Steinle US 2009/0259960 A1 Oct. 15, 2009
Curl US 2009/0282371 A1 Nov. 12, 2009
Nishihara US 2010/0050133 A1 Feb. 25, 2010
Butler US 2010/0149182 A1 June 17, 2010
Brennan US 2011/0282331 A1 Nov. 17, 2011
Katz US 2014/0361988 A1 Dec. 11, 2014
G. Favalora Volumetric 3D Displays
and Application
Infrastructure
Aug. 2005

REJECTION
Claims 9–13, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, and Steinle.
Final Act. 5.2
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, and Butler. Final
Act. 12.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, and Curl. Final Act.
13.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, and Katz. Final Act.
15.

2 The Examiner originally rejected all of the claims with the inclusion of
Brennan, but removed Brennan and replaced it with teachings from
Favalora, which was already part of the rejection. See Ans. 17; Final Act. 5–
8.
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
4
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, and Aritake. Final
Act. 16.
Claims 16, 22–24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, and
Katz. Final Act. 17.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, Katz, and Aritake.
Final Act. 20.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, Katz, and Butler.
Final Act. 20.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mathew, Favalora, Nishihara, Grossman, Steinle, Katz, and Curl. Final
Act. 22.
OPINION
Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Favalora generates the claimed “hologram
suspended in space.” Ans. 19. Appellant is correct, however, that
“Favalora’s projector displays the perceived 3D image onto a rotating disc,”
which “cannot reasonably be considered to be a hologram suspended in
space.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s Specification describes at least two
different embodiments of a 3D holographic display system. In one
embodiment, which is depicted in Figure 1, the system “has a spherical
display suspended in air.” Spec. ¶ 53. In an alternative embodiment, the
system “can be formed with a designated display medium such as a
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
5
container,” which “can be mounted on the ceiling or wall of cath lab 100 in
proximity to the clinician to allow for convenient viewing.” Spec. ¶ 54.
Favalora’s device is more akin to the use of the cylinder described in the
alternative embodiment where some kind of substrate is necessary for the
display. We take the term “suspended in space” as referring to a device such
as that described in relation to Figure 1, where the image is, as described in
the specification, “suspended in air.” Accordingly, we do not agree that
Favalora teaches the claimed 3D holographic image “suspended in space.”
Appellant also asserts that “[n]one of the prior art references disclose
a hand gesture along a portion of the circumference of a hologram that
causes a rotation of the hologram corresponding to a direction of the hand
gesture along the circumference.” Reply Br. 7. The Examiner finds that
Nishihara teaches that “[t]he hand gesture is found to be performed ‘along’ a
portion of the circumference of the hologram wherein the term ‘along’ is
given its common interpretation as ‘next to.’” Ans. 20. Appellant has the
better position.
The Examiner appears to interpret “along” without consideration of
other terms in the claim. Not only is the gesture claimed as being “along the
circumference” but the gesture “causes a corresponding rotation about one
or more axes along a path that corresponds to the detectable hand gesture
such that the hologram rotationally tracks a corresponding direction of the
detectable hand gesture.” Appellant is correct that “the hand gestures of
Favalora and Nishihara are performed ‘at a distance’ from the hologram.”
Reply Br. 8. Appellant further explains that “[m]ost hand gesture systems
will provide different gestures for rotation about the horizontal (x), vertical
(y), and depth (z) axes, and the off-axis rotation is accomplished by rotating
in one axis, then rotating in the other axis, then rotating in the remaining
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
6
axis.” Appeal Br. 12. We agree with Appellant that the claim language
reflects a “contrast to the gesture-at-a-distance approach” found in the cited
prior art. Id.
Appellant’s Specification describes the claimed gesture in reference to
Figure 2 stating that “a simple hand gesture is performed by moving a hand
205 in a sweeping motion from point “A” to point “B” around a
circumference of the holographic display.” Spec. ¶ 61. It is clear from both
the description and depiction in Fig. 2 that the user is actually interacting
with the display itself and making gestures in close proximity such that
rotation of the display corresponds to the hand gesture. We agree with
Appellant that the cited prior art is more akin to the gesture-at-a-distance
type of control, which is not the same as gestures “along the circumference”
that generate “corresponding” movement of the image. For the reasons
stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Appeal 2020-002139
Application 14/368,107
7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–13, 29, 30 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle
9–13, 29, 30
14 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Butler
14
15 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Curl
15
31 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Katz
31
32 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Aritake
32
16, 22–24,
27, 28
103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Katz
16, 22–24,
27, 28
21 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Katz, Aritake
21
25 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Katz, Butler
25
26 103 Matthew, Favalora,
Nishihara,
Grossman, Steinle,
Katz, Curl
26
Overall
Outcome
9–16, 21–32