Ex Parte TASHIRO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2018

13866998 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/866,998 04/19/2013 Rika TASHIRO
21254 7590 12/06/2018
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
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.
W-4825US 6694
EXAMINER
SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RIKA TASHIRO
Appeal 2018-001701
Application 13/866,998
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest is FUJIFILM Corporation." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2018-001701
Application 13/866,998
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
"This invention relates to an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and an
ultrasound image display method." (Spec. page 1, lines 5---6.)
Illustrative Claim
1. An ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a vibrator array;
a transmission circuit that transmits an ultrasound beam
toward a subject from the vibrator array;
a reception circuit that generates reception data by
processing reception signals output from the vibrator array that
has received an ultrasonic echo from the subject;
an image producer that generates an ultrasound image on
the basis of the reception data obtained by the reception circuit;
a monitor that displays the ultrasound image generated by
the image producer;
a puncture needle to be inserted into the subject;
an operating unit used to input an instruction from an
operator; and
a controller that selects either a live operation to display a
puncture guide line so as to be superimposed on a real-time
ultrasound image displayed on the monitor or a freeze operation
to reproduce an ultrasound image of a predetermined frame on
the monitor with the puncture guide line being superimposed on
the monitor according to an operation through the operating unit
by the operator, displays a partial puncture guide line composed
from only both end portions of the puncture guide line with a
middle portion of the puncture guide line being eliminated so as
to be superimposed on the ultrasound image, when an instruction
for non-display of the puncture guide line is given through the
operating unit during the freeze operation, and automatically
returns the eliminated middle portion of the puncture guide line
and displays the puncture guide line including the middle portion
entirely so as to be superimposed on the real-time ultrasound
image without performing an operation to display the puncture
guide line by the operator at the time of returning from the freeze
operation to the live operation.
2
Appeal 2018-001701
Application 13/866,998
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over AAPA, 2 Pelissier, 3 and Pan. 4 (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAP A, Pelissier, Pan, and Arai. 5
(Final Action 8.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 4, 7, 10, 13-15, 19, and 20) depending
therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 1 recites "[a]n ultrasound diagnostic apparatus,"
and independent claim 18 recites "[ a ]n ultrasound display method." ( Appeal
Br., Claims App.) The Examiner determines that the claimed apparatus and
method would have been obvious over the prior art of record (see Final
Action 2-3); and the Appellant argues that this determination by the
Examiner is not supported sufficiently by the record (see Appeal Br. 7-12;
see also Reply Br. 4--7). For at least the reason discussed below, we are
persuaded by the Appellant's position.
Independent claims 1 and 18 recite a "partial puncture guide line" that
is "composed from only both end portions of the puncture guide line with a
middle portion of the puncture guide line being eliminated." (Appeal Br.,
2 Spec. 2, 1. 14- 3, 1. 2; Figs. 8A and 8B.
3 US 2010/0298704 Al, published November 25, 2010.
4 US 2008/0245724 Al, published October 9, 2008.
5 US 2007/0010743 Al, published January 11, 2007.
3
Appeal 2018-001701
Application 13/866,998
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that "Pelissier discloses that graphical
markers can be displayed and removed to show the image underlying the
graphic marker." (Final Action 3.)
Pelissier discloses that "[a] plurality of graphical elements" can be
"superposed" on an ultrasound image 23. (Pelissier ,r 153.) These graphical
elements can include a "line 30" indicating "the path that will be followed
by the tip of [a] needle 21 as it continues to be inserted," and a "marker 3 2"
that corresponds to "the intersection of needle 21 with the plane and the
body represented by [the ultrasound] image 23." (Id.) Pelissier further
discloses that:
In some embodiments, graphical elements, such as, for
example, markers, lines and the like, may comprise translucent
and/or stippled elements to allow the features of an ultrasound
image to be made out by a user when the graphical elements are
superposed on the image. In some embodiments, the display of a
graphical element may be inhibited and/ or the appearance of the
graphical element modified to allow the features of an ultrasound
image beneath the element to be made out, upon the detection of
a condition of the ultrasound environment. For example, in some
embodiments, when the tip of needle 21 is in or almost in the
plane of the ultrasound image, marker 32 is modified or removed
so that the user can see in image 23 the tip of needle 21 ( or a line
representative of the tip of needle 21) approaching the target
location.
(Id. ,r 154.) According to the Examiner, Pelissier "makes it clear," in the
above-quoted paragraph, "that only a portion of the graphical line element is
made translucent" and "the remainder[] of the graphical line element is still
superimposed on the [ultrasound] image." (Answer 4.) In other words,
according to the Examiner, Pelissier teaches that "the graphical line element
is partially still superposed on the image when a portion is removed." (Id.)
4
Appeal 2018-001701
Application 13/866,998
We agree with the Examiner that Pelissier teaches that a graphic
element can be superimposed on an ultrasound image; we agree with the
Examiner that Pelissier teaches that such a superimposed graphical element
can be a puncture guide line; and we agree with the Examiner that Pelissier
teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art can alter the appearance of a
graphical element to allow tissue obscured thereby to be visible. (See Final
Action 3--4; Answer 4---6; Pelissier ,r,r 153-158.)
But we agree with the Appellant that Pelissier teaches that, when
altering the appearance of a graphical element, the appearance of the entire
graphic element is altered, not just a portion thereof. (See Appeal Br. 9;
Reply Br. 5; Pelissier ,r,r 153-158.) Put another way, Pelissier teaches
removing, inhibiting, translucenting, stippling, and/or color-coding the full
length of a puncture guide line, not just a portion (middle or otherwise) of
the line's length.
Thus, despite the Examiner's contention to the contrary, Pelissier does
not "general[ly ]" disclose eliminating a portion "of [a] needle graphic
marker." (Final Action 5.) As such, the Examiner does not explain
adequately why Pelissier would steer one of ordinary skill to "select[]" a
portion of a puncture guide line to "make transparent" (i.e., eliminate) "so
that underlying tissue could be displayed." (Answer 5.)
The Examiner additionally implies that Pan teaches "that removing
only a portion of [a] graphical guide line marker beneficially shows
underlying tissue." (Answer 6.) We agree with the Appellant, however, that
"[ s ]imilar to Pelissier, Pan teaches either displaying the entire puncture line
or removing the entire puncture line." (Appeal Br. 10; see also Pan ,r 34.)
5
Appeal 2018-001701
Application 13/866,998
The Examiner further finds that the "problem" of graphical markers
"obscure[ing] underlying tissue" was "well-known," and the "solution" to
this problem was also "well-known." (Answer 6.) Insofar as the prior art of
record shows that this problem was well-known, and insofar as the prior art
of record proposes a solution to this allegedly well-known problem, the
Examiner does not establish sufficiently that the proposed solution entails
eliminating a portion (middle or otherwise) of a puncture guide line.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA,
Pelissier, and Pan.
The Examiner's further findings with respect to the dependent claims
and the additional prior art reference (Arai) do not compensate for the
shortcomings in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18. (See Final
Action 5-9.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA,
Pelissier, and Pan; and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over AAP A, Pelissier, Pan, and Arai.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and
13-20.
REVERSED
6