Ex Parte Lundberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2012

10926754 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VIDAR LUNDBERG, ERIK NORMANN STEEN,
JORGEN MAEHLE, and ARVE STAVO
____________

Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to diagnostic ultrasound systems. In
particular, the invention relates to protocols for automatically performing
ultrasound scans. Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claims 1 and 19 are illustrative of the
invention:
1. An ultrasound system comprising:
memory storing a template comprised of cells, each of
said cells containing scan parameters defining a scan sequence
for acquisition of ultrasound images along at least two scan
planes through an object;
a user input for entering, prior to scanning the object,
parameter values for said scan parameters associated with said
cells in said template to define said scan sequence along the at
least two scan planes; and
a probe scanning the object to automatically and
successively acquire ultrasound images along the at least two
scan planes based on said parameter values for said scan
parameters in said cells.
19. A method for displaying ultrasound images of an
object that is changing states in accordance with a protocol,
each of the ultrasound images being acquired along a
corresponding scan plane through the object, comprising:
providing a collection of 4D ultrasound images, each of
said 4D ultrasound images being acquired along an associated
scan plane while the object is in an associated state and wherein
views of the 4D ultrasound images are displayed during
acquisition;
segmenting a display into at least two quadrants; and
Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

3
presenting in said at least two quadrants a corresponding
4D ultrasound image, wherein co-displayed ultrasound images
correspond to one of a common state of the object and a
common scan plane through the object and presenting in the at
least two quadrants corresponding 4D ultrasound images
acquired along a common scan plane while the object is in at
least two different states.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner relied on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Jansson US 4,672,559 June 9, 1987
Lobodzinski US 5,619,995 Apr. 15, 1997
Miller US 6,213,944 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Holley US 6,354,997 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Hager US 6,409,669 B1 June 25, 2002
Friemel US 2003/0055308 A1 Mar. 20, 2003
Roundhill US 6,951,543 B2 Oct. 4, 20051

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holley and Jansson.
The Examiner rejected claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miller.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Holley, Jansson, and Friemel.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Holley, Jansson, and Miller.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Holley, Jansson, and Hager.

1 Filed Apr. 16, 2004.
Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

4
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holley, Jansson, and Roundhill.
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller and Lobodzinski.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) because (a) the combination of Holley and Jansson fails to
teach a template containing cells that store scan parameters defining a scan
sequence and a user input for entering values for such scan parameters prior
to scanning (App. Br. 12-16), (b) the Examiner failed to provide sufficient
reasoning for combining Holley and Jansson (App. Br. 17), and (c) Jansson
is nonanalogous art (App. Br. 17-18)?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) because Holley does not teach automatically calculating
parameter values for a second cell based on parameter values for a first cell
entered by a user (App. Br. 18-19)?
3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) because Miller fails to teach or suggest “presenting in said at least
two quadrants a corresponding 4D ultrasound image, wherein co-displayed
ultrasound images correspond to one of a common state of the object and a
common scan plane through the object” (App. Br. 19-21)?
4. With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16-18, and 24, did the Examiner provide sufficient
reasoning for combining references (App. Br. 22-25)?

Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasoning set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner’s Answer filed in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
However, we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 10
Appellants contend that Holley does not disclose a template that stores
scan parameters defining a scan sequence. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-6.
In particular, Appellants argue that “Holley does not mention anything about
how or in what order the scan parameters are stored.” Id. 13. According to
Appellants, the scan parameters in Holley relate to different settings for
different scan modes, not to a scan sequence. Id.
The Examiner responds that Holley teaches a set, or a template, of
scan parameters that contains values for the type of transducer, mode,
selected center frequencies, a frame rate, and sizes and positions of images.
Ans. 18 (citing Holley, col.11, l.66 – col.12, l.4). The Examiner further
finds that these parameters affect the nature of the scan sequence to be
performed on the patient. Id. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Holley
discloses a template containing scan parameters that define a scan sequence.
Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. We agree
with the Examiner that the set of scan parameters disclosed in Holley is a
template containing scan parameters that define a scan sequence, as recited
in claims 1 and 10. We note that the scan sequence in the claims refers to
Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

6
acquisition of ultrasound images, so whether Holley teaches “how or in what
order parameters are stored” is immaterial. Just as in Appellants’ invention,
see, e.g., Spec. ¶ [0036], the scan parameters in Holley control the sequence
for acquisition of images, see, e.g., col.12, ll.10-25. Also, as properly found
by the Examiner, Holley teaches a user input that allows a user to enter
values for scan parameters prior to scanning. Ans. 4, 19.
We also find that the Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning to
support the combination of Holley and Jansson. We agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to store Holley’s scan parameters in a memory with assignable memory cells
as taught by Jansson to achieve efficient organization. See Ans. 4, 18-19.
We further agree with the Examiner that Jansson is analogous art.
Ans. 19. The reference is from the same field of endeavor—medical
imaging—as Appellants’ invention. In addition, Jansson teaches the use of
assignable memory cells in a computer-based imaging machine, and is
therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem of how to store scan
parameters.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 13, and 15, for which
Appellants have not made separate, detailed arguments.
Claims 6 and 12
Appellants contend that Holley does not teach automatically
calculating parameter values for a second cell based on parameter values for
a first cell entered by a user, as recited in claims 6 and 12. App. Br. 18-19.
According to Appellants, the “parameters in each data set of Holley are
independent of each other and predetermined.” Id. 19.
Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

7
We agree with the Examiner that Holley teaches the disputed
limitation. As properly found by the Examiner, Holley discloses that based
on values selected by a user for certain scan parameters, which could be
parameter values for a first cell, the system control selects a data set
containing values for other scan parameters, which could be parameter
values for a second cell. Ans. 5, 20; Holley, col.11, l.61 – col.12, l.6. Thus,
we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 12.
Claim 19
Appellants contend that Miller does not teach or suggest presenting in
at least two quadrants co-displayed ultrasound images that “correspond to
one of a common state of the object and a common scan plane through the
object,” as recited in claim 19. App. Br. 19-21. The Examiner finds that
Miller explicitly teaches presenting in two quadrants images acquired along
a common scan plane. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner further finds that based on
Miller’s teaching that long sequences can be trimmed to create one or more
shorter sequences, it would have been obvious to present in two quadrants
two different shorter sequences that correspond to a common state of the
object (e.g., the heart at rest) and a common scan plane. Id. 8, 20-21.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to co-
display images corresponding to one of a common state of the object and a
common scan plane. Given Miller’s disclosure of a display segmented into
quadrants and the acquisition of video images acquired along various scan
planes and while the object is in different states, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have had the knowledge to select for display images
corresponding to a common state and/or a common scan plane.
Appeal 2010-006627
Application 10/926,754

8
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent
claim 19 and dependent claims 20-23, for which Appellants have not made
separate, detailed arguments.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16-18, and 24
For each of the remaining rejections, Appellants contend that the
Examiner failed to provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
for combining references. App. Br. 22-25. In response to each of the
arguments raised by Appellants, the Examiner presents detailed findings and
responses. Ans. 21-24. We conclude that for each rejection the Examiner
has provided a sufficient rationale for combining the references, and thus did
not err in rejecting dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16-18, and 24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj