Ex Parte RobinsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 3, 201813126466 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/126,466 04/28/2011 Andrew L. Robinson 24737 7590 08/07/2018 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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. 2008P01655WOUS 3561 EXAMINER KINNARD, LISA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3737 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/07/2018 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW L. ROBINSON Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 Technology Center 3700 Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, JOHN G. NEW, and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-14 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows: 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Br. 4. Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 1. An ultrasonic probe comprising: a transducer array comprising one or more transducer elements; and a microbeamformer integrated circuit including a plurality of transmitter and receive channels selectively coupled to the transducer elements, at least one microbeamformer transmitter and receive channel of the plurality comprising: a transmitter circuit having an output for delivering a transducer drive signal , and operable to deliver the drive signal in a controllably timed relationship with other transmitter circuits; a plurality of connection points between the transmitter output and one or more transducer elements by which the transmitter output is selectively coupled to the one or more transducer elements to selectively couple the transducer drive signal to at least one selected transducer element; a transmit/receive switch coupled to at least one of the connection points; and a receive channel coupled to the transmit/receive switch. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection made by Examiner: I. Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Freeman 2 in view of Kristoffersen. 3 II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view ofBrock-Fisher4, and further in view of Petrofsky. 5 2 US 2006/0264747 Al published November 23, 2006. 3 US 2009/0005684 Al published January 1, 2009. 4 US 2005/0148874 Al published July 7, 2005 5 US 5,573,001 issued November 12, 1996. 2 Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 III. Claims 6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Petrofsky, and further in view of Lazenby. 6 IV. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Brock-Fisher, and further in view of Scampini. 7 V. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Lazenby, in view of Petrofsky, and further in view of Scampini. VI. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Freeman in view of Kristoffersen, in view of Lazenby, in view of Petrofsky, and further in view of Brock-Fisher. Since all of these rejections rely upon the teachings of Freeman and Kristoffersen regarding the ultrasonic probe having "a plurality of connection points between the transmitter output and one or more transducer elements," the same issue is dispositive for all of these rejections, so we will consider the rejections together. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv) Appellant contends that Freeman is missing a transmitter having an output and a plurality of connection points between the transmitter output and one or more transducer elements. Br. 9-10. Because the disclosure of Kristoffersen "fails to make up for the deficiency of Freeman" the rejection should be reversed. Br. 12. 6 US 2006/0241490 Al published October 26, 2006. 7 WO 2006/035384 Al published April 6, 2006. 3 Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 Freeman's microbeam former is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below: '---------.----~J 20-\ • FIG. 1 . i / J 10 12 ., Fig. 1 is a schematic depiction of a microbeamformer portion of an ultrasonic transducer. Freeman ,r 37. Each patch 20 includes a plurality of microbeamformer channels 22. Id. ,r 47. Each channel contains a transmitter 24, a transducer 26, and a microbeam receiver 28. Id. Examiner finds that Freeman discloses an ultrasonic probe having a transducer array with one or more transducer elements. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Freeman ,r,r 7, 8, 16, 28, 30, 47, 51, 55, in addition Fig. 1 (item 26), Fig. 3(items 46 and 48)); Ans. 3--4. Examiner acknowledges that "Freeman does not explicitly disclose details regarding a transmit/receive switch or a receive channel." Ans. 3; Final Act. 3. Examiner relies on the teachings of 4 Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 Kristoffersen to disclose a transmit/receive switch. Ans. 4 ( citing Kristoffersen ,r 54 ). Examiner finds that the claim refers to an ultrasonic probe having at least one microbeamformer transmit and receive channel including a transmitter having an output and a plurality of connection points between the transmitter output and one or more transducer elements. Since the claim discloses that the transmitter output can be connected to one or more transducer inputs this limitation would include a case of each transmitter output coupled to receptive transducer inputs. Ans. 18. Based on this interpretation Examiner concludes that the claims are obvious over the combination of Freeman and Kristoffersen. See Id. On this record we find that Appellant has the better position. "[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim." CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int 'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981,985 (CCPA 1974)). Examiner's position is that the claim language reciting "one or more transducer elements" reads on Freeman's disclosure of a transmitter coupled to a transducer and coupled in tum to receiver. We understand that Freeman discloses multiple channels (22) in each patch (20), and each channel contains a transmitter output, transducer, and receiver. See Freeman Fig. 1 (reproduced above). What is missing, however, is the limitation of "a plurality of connection points" between the transmitter output and the transducer element in each patch. By way of comparison, Figure 2 of Appellants' Specification is reproduced below: 5 Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 Fig. 2 Appellants' Figure 2 depicts an embodiment of Appellants' claimed invention showing a partial schematic and block diagram forming a first transmitter and preamplifier combination which is switchable between two transducer elements. Spec. 3. In Figure 2, the two output stages of the pulser 28 are both coupled to switches 22 and 24 in the integrated circuit chip. The switches are coupled to connection points for one or more (i.e., a plurality of) transducer elements, shown in this example as bond pads 30a and 30b. Spec. 6. We agree with Appellant that Freeman does not disclose "a plurality of connection points" either between a transmitter output and a single (one) transducer or between a transmitter output and (multiple) transducers. See Br. 9-10. Because Freeman does not disclose a plurality of connection points and Examiner does not rely on Kristoffersen for showing such connection points, we agree with Appellant that the rejection of the claims based on the combination of Freeman and Kristoffersen must be reversed because the proposed combination does not account for every claim limitation. 6 Appeal2017-005557 Application 13/126,466 SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of all claims. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation