Ex Parte OTA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2019

14167750 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/167,750 01/29/2014 Kazushi OTA
1933 7590 03/12/2019
HOLTZ, HOLTZ & VOLEK PC
630 Ninth A venue
Suite 1010
NEW YORK, NY 10036-3744
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.
14008 1025
EXAMINER
ROZANSKI, MICHAEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2019 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):
USPTO@HHPATENT.COM
pair_hhgc@cpaglobal.com
rlevinsohn@hhpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUSHI OT A
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
Technology Center 3700
Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-14. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Konica Minolta, Inc. is the Applicant and real-party-in-interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to operator displays for an ultrasound
diagnostic imaging apparatus. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus which
outputs a transmitting ultrasound to a test subject, obtains a
receiving signal by receiving a reflecting ultrasound from the
test subject, generates ultrasound image data based on the
obtained receiving signal, and displays an ultrasound image on
a display screen of a display based on the ultrasound image
data, the ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus comprising:
a touch panel provided overlapped on the display screen of
the display; and
a processor which executes a vertical display mode to
display two vertical ultrasound display regions in which two
ultrasound images are respectively aligned vertically on the
display screen of the display and a horizontal display mode to
display two horizontal ultrasound display regions in which two
ultrasound images are respectively aligned horizontally on the
display screen of the display,
wherein in the vertical display mode, the processor sets an
upper side operation reception region and a lower side
operation reception region aligned vertically on the touch panel,
and when the processor detects an operation of touching the
upper side operation reception region, the processor sets an
ultrasound image displayed on an upper side to a selected state
and displays an ultrasound display region containing the
ultrasound image displayed on the upper side to contain a mark
to indicate that the ultrasound display region containing the
ultrasound image displayed on the upper side contains an
ultrasound image in the selected state, and when the processor
detects an operation of touching the lower side operation
reception region, the processor sets an ultrasound image
displayed on a lower side to the selected state and displays an
ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image
displayed on the lower side to contain the mark to indicate that
the ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image
2
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
displayed on the lower side contains an ultrasound image in the
selected state;
wherein in the horizontal display mode, the processor sets a
left side operation reception region and a right side operation
reception region aligned horizontally on the touch panel, and
when the processor detects an operation of touching the left side
operation reception region, the processor sets an ultrasound
image displayed on a left side to the selected state and displays
an ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image
displayed on the left side to contain the mark to indicate that the
ultrasound display region containing the ultrasound image
displayed on the left side contains an ultrasound image in the
selected state, and when the processor detects an operation of
touching the right side operation reception region, the processor
sets an ultrasound image displayed on a right side to the
selected state and displays an ultrasound display region
containing the ultrasound image displayed on the right side to
contain the mark to indicate that the ultrasound display region
containing the ultrasound image displayed on the right side
contains an ultrasound image in the selected state;
wherein in the vertical display mode the upper side
operation reception region and the lower side operation
reception region are displayed in a region of the touch panel so
as not to overlap with the two vertical ultrasound display
regions, and in the horizontal display mode the left side
operation reception region and the right side operation reception
region are displayed in a region of the touch panel so as not to
overlap with the two horizontal ultrasound display regions.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Roundhill
Kim
Kato
Chiang
US 6,951,543 B2
US 8,517,946 B2
US 2014/0024939 Al
US 2014/0114190 Al
3
Oct. 4, 2005
Aug.27,2013
Jan.23,2014
Apr. 24, 2014
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
The following rejections are before us for review: 2
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Roundhill, and Kato. 3
2. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Roundhill, Kato, and Chiang.
Claim 1
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 14
over Kim, Roundhill, and Kato
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses the invention substantially as
claimed except for: (1) the "setting to a selected state" and "mark"
limitations for which the Examiner relies on Roundhill; and (2) the "not to
overlap" limitation for which the Examiner relies on Kato. Final
Action 3-5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set
an image to a selected state via a touchscreen. According to the Examiner, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to permit quick
system set up. Id. at 4. The Examiner further concludes that it would have
been obvious to create a display with operation reception regions that do not
overlap with ultrasound image display regions. Id. at 4--5. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
improve the operability of the device. Id. at 5.
2 A ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn by the
Examiner in response to an after-final claim amendment that is entered.
Ans. 5.
3 Although the Examiner's rejection mentions claim 6, Appellant's Claims
Appendix indicates that claim 6 is cancelled. Claims App.
4
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
Appellant argues, among other things, that Roundhill fails to disclose
a selected state indicator "mark" as claimed. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner states that the set of "dashes" that appear
on the right sight of Roundhill Figure 4 are interpreted as "marks." Ans. 7.
In the alternative, the Examiner, for the first time in the Answer, takes the
position that Kato discloses "marks" as claimed. Id. ( citing Kato ,r,r 63, 66,
& 71 ). According to the Examiner:
Id.
Kato teaches that operation buttons can be displayed within
image area 42 or in an area other than the diagnosis area (i.e.
such as within the area of the image 1) only during the time of
operation and can be displayed while a user is touching and has
selected a particular image region. These buttons are
considered to be 'marks', thereby meeting the claimed
limitation. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
operation buttons displayed relative to a selected image are
indeed 'marks' as they indicate that an image is in a selected
state.
Appellant's invention is an operator interface for an ultrasound
diagnostic imaging apparatus. Spec. 1. The invention seeks to overcome
problems that exist in the art associated with operating the apparatus in a
dual screen display mode. Id. at 2. Thus, the invention seeks to enable an
operator to operate the apparatus intuitively while devoting less surface area
to operator control keys. Id. at 2-3.
Where the dual display is set to the horizontal display mode of the
dual screen display mode, the image display region Ul is divided in half
between a left side display region Ul 1 and a right side display region U12.
Spec. 30. In the horizontal display mode, either left side display region Ul 1
5
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
or right side display region U12 is active or, in other words, operates in a
"selected state." Id.
The user is able to acknowledge the active display region by
confirming the display position of the active mark M. For
example, the moving image of the ultrasound image is
displayed in the active display region and the ultrasound image
is displayed fixed in the display region which is not active (non-
active display region). The left side operation reception region
is set in the position where the L button B6 is displayed and the
right side operation reception region is set in the position where
the R button B7 is displayed. When the operation of touching
each operation reception region is received, the active display
region is switched. In other words, when the L button B6 is
touched, the left side display region Ul 1 becomes active, and
when the R button B7 is touched, the right side display region
U12 becomes active.
Id. at 30-31. In the embodiment depicted in Appellant's Figure 6, the active
mark "M" appears as a relatively thick horizontal line toward the top of
display region Ul 1. Thus, an operator viewing display region Ul can
quickly and reliably determine that the left side display region Ul 1 is
"active" or in the "selected state." See Fig. 6.
The embodiment of Roundhill depicted in Figure 4 shows an upper,
"first window" 50 with several thumbnail images 52---66 that are obtained
using different settings for the same image data. Roundhill, Fig. 4, col. 4,
11. 4--17. Roundhill displays all of such thumbnail images adjacent each
other in the same window 50. Id. Viewing screen 10 also includes a second
window 80 that includes a full-size image 84 as well as other data displayed
around the periphery of the image 84. The image 84 is obtained using the
settings selected by selecting one or more of the thumbnail images 52-66. In
other words, Roundhill displays a plurality of thumbnail images in a first
window and a single, full-size image in a second window. Roundhill does
6
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
not, however, display two full size images in a dual screen display mode
where a first image is active in a selected state and the second image is not.
The "dashes" that appear on the right side of window 80, contrary to the
Examiner's findings, do not serve to distinguish between an active/selected
state display image and an inactive/deselected display image in a dual screen
display mode.
Turning now to the Examiner's alternative findings regarding Kato
allegedly meeting the "mark" limitation, as we note above, the Examiner's
findings appear, for the very first time, in the Answer. Ans. 7. In the final
rejection, the Examiner relies exclusively on Roundhill as disclosing the
claimed mark. Id. We further note that the Examiner has not designated
this new finding ofKato's alleged "mark" as a new ground ofrejection. 4
Under the circumstances, Appellant has not been given adequate notice and
an opportunity to respond to this newly cited evidence. Consequently, we
will not consider the Examiner's newly raised findings regarding Kato' s
alleged "mark" in reaching our Decision.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact regarding the Roundhill selected state 'mark" are not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence and, as a result, the
Examiner's legal conclusion ofunpatentability is unfounded. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
4 Although an Examiner's Answer may include a new ground of rejection,
the Examiner must obtain the approval of the Director to furnish an answer
that includes a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.39(a)(2). An
Answer that relies on any evidence that is not relied on in the office action
from which the appeal is taken, is deemed to be new ground of rejection. Id.
7
Appeal2018-005025
Application 14/167,750
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from
the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus,
for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14.
Unpatentability of Claims 10-13
over Kim, Roundhill, Kato, and Chiang
Claims 10-13 depend from claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner's
rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified
above with respect to claim 1, which infirmity is not cured by the
Examiner's reliance on the Chiang reference. Thus, for essentially the same
reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 10-13.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-14 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8