Michael H. Slayton

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2019

14217382 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2019)

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.
14/217,382 03/17/2014 Michael H Slayton 148534.00142.GTS102USNP 1319
26287 7590 07/23/2019
Quarles & Brady LLP/Guided Therapy Systems, LLC
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2019 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):
l.ruggiero@guidedtherapy.com
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL H. SLAYTON
____________

Appeal 2018-008503
Application 14/217,3821
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 and 8–18. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “The party in interest is Guided Therapy Systems, LLC.” Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008503
Application 14/217,382

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An ultrasound treatment system comprising:
an ultrasound transducer comprising a subdivided surface
comprising a plurality of electronically isolated pieces, each of
the plurality of electronically isolated pieces configured to
independently generate planar waves;
a power source coupled to at least two of the electronically
isolated pieces, wherein the power source is configured to
independently shape a temporal delay or a spatial delay, as
compared to each other, of acoustic energy emitted from the at
least two of the pieces;
wherein each of the at least two electronically isolated
pieces shape the acoustic energy, independently, into a thermal
zone in subcutaneous tissue.

Rejections
I. Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Keidar (US 2005/0015953 A1, pub. Jan. 27, 2005) and
Slayton et al. (US 2006/0074314 A1, pub. Apr. 6, 2006) (“Slayton”).
II. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keidar, Slayton, and Wakabayashi et al. (US 2008/0200811 A1, pub.
Aug. 21, 2008) (“Wakabayashi”).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Keidar discloses “an ultrasound transducer
comprising a subdivided surface comprising a plurality of electronically
isolated pieces,” but fails to disclose “each of the plurality of electronically
isolated pieces configured to independently generate planar waves,” as
Appeal 2018-008503
Application 14/217,382

3
recited by independent claims 1 and 13. See Final Act. 2–4. To remedy the
deficiency, the Examiner finds that Slayton teaches “a phased array with
electronically isolated pieces that produce [a] planar wave.” Id. at 3. The
Examiner finds Slayton’s phased array includes electronically isolated rings,
where “[e]ach ring is a piece” and each ring “includes a set of individual
transducer elements.” Ans. 13.
The Appellant argues Slayton does not teach a phased array including
“a plurality of electronically isolated pieces configured to independently
generate planar waves.” Br. 7; see also id. at 11 (“Slayton does not teach
that each ring of the annular array transducer is configured to individually
create a planar wave.”). The Appellant’s argument is persuasive, because
the Examiner’s finding that Slayton teaches a phased array with
“electronically isolated pieces configured to independently generate planar
waves” is inadequately supported.
Slayton discloses annular array 1000 including rings 1012, 1014, 1016
that “can be mechanically and electrically isolated into a set of individual
elements, and can create planar, focused, or defocused waves.” Slayton
¶ 65. Notably, Slayton lacks any statement as to each ring being formed of
individual transducer elements or each ring generating its own wave.
Rather, Slayton’s rings cooperate by “methods of adjusting corresponding
transmit and/or receive delays” of respective rings to generate waves. Id.
Accordingly, we fail to understand that Slayton teaches each ring 1012,
1014, 1016 being configured to independently generate planar waves.
Further, on this record, we determine that the Examiner fails to adequately
explain –– using evidence or technical reasoning –– how one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand each of Slayton’s electrically isolated rings
Appeal 2018-008503
Application 14/217,382

4
1012, 1014, 1016, which cooperate to create a planar wave as an annular
array, as being configured to independently generate planar waves.
Therefore, we determine that the Examiner’s finding that Slayton’s annular
array comprises a plurality of electronically isolated pieces, each configured
to independently generate planar waves, as required by independent claims 1
and 13, is inadequately supported.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8, and
10–18 as unpatentable over Keidar and Slayton.
The remaining rejection based on the combination of Keidar and
Slayton and in combination with Wakabayashi relies on the same deficiency
as discussed above. This deficiency is not cured by the additional findings
and particular reasoning of the remaining rejection. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Keidar, Slayton,
and Wakabayashi.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 and
8–18.
REVERSED