Ki-Wook Han

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

13749862 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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.
13/749,862 01/25/2013 Ki-wook HAN 7200-1-010 1048
33942 7590 12/12/2019
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian Avenue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
EXAMINER
PARK, PATRICIA JOO YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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 KI-WOOK HAN
____________

Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated May 21, 2018) rejecting claims 1,
3, 8, 10, 13–15, 20, 29, and 30.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(b), namely, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appellant
identifies itself as the sole real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(filed Oct. 25, 2018). Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 12, 16–19, and 21–28 are canceled. Appeal Br. 11–
13 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus
with multiple adjustable display units. Spec. 2, ll. 11–12, 17–20.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. An ultrasound diagnosis apparatus comprising:
a main body supported by wheels and[] including
an ultrasound image processing unit that generates
ultrasound image signals;
a main display unit, electrically coupled to the
ultrasound image processing unit and operable to display
ultrasound images corresponding to the ultrasound image
signals;
a control panel comprising control keys, and a
control display unit electrically coupled to the ultrasound
image processing unit, the control display unit displaying
a control menu of the ultrasound image processing unit,
and the control display unit being a touchscreen panel
configured to receive user commands via touch input;
a first coupling unit rotatably coupling a lower
housing part of the control display unit and a housing
part including the control keys so as to allow the lower
housing part of the control display unit to rotate with
respect to a horizontal axis of the housing part including
the control keys, and
a driving mechanism for supplying a driving force
to tilt the control display unit with respect to the housing
part including the control keys while the housing part
including the control keys is level with respect to the
main body,
wherein the control keys of the control panel
comprise at least one key for controlling the driving
mechanism.
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
3

REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 13–15, 29, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith,3 Kim,4 and
Skwarek.5
II. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Smith, Kim, Skwarek, and
Capoferri.6
III. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith, Kim, Skwarek, and
Yamamoto.7

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 3,
13–15, 29, and 30 apart from claim 1. See Appeal, Br. 5, 10. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 1 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 3, 13–15, 29, and 30 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Smith discloses an ultrasound diagnosis
apparatus including, inter alia, a main body 14 (cart)8 supported by wheels

3 Smith et al., US 2008/0055826 A1, published Mar. 6, 2008.
4 Kim et al., KR 10-2009-0124830, published Dec. 3, 2009. We derive our
understanding of this reference from the translation contained in the image
file wrapper of this application. All references to the text of this document
are to portions of the translation.
5 Skwarek et al., US 2011/0060328 A1, published Mar. 10, 2011.
6 Capoferri et al., US 2007/0053151 A1, published Mar. 08, 2007.
7 Yamamoto, US 2010/0179427 A1, published July 15, 2010.
8 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Smith.
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
4

26, ultrasound imaging processing unit 90, 116 for generating ultrasound
images, a main display unit 28 (monitor), 126 (clinician display) coupled to
the processing unit for displaying ultrasound images, and a control panel 134
(user interface) with control keys. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Smith, para.
78, Figs. 2, 11). However, the Examiner finds that Smith fails to disclose a
control display unit, a first coupling unit, and a driving mechanism, as called
for by claim 1. See id. at 3.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Kim discloses an ultrasound
diagnosis apparatus including, inter alia, control panel 220 having rotatably
mounted thereon, via a hinge, touch screen control display unit 210 for
displaying a control menu for the ultrasound imaging processing unit. Id. at
3–4 (citing Kim, p. 4, “Technical Field,” p. 7, para. 5 (“menu for optimizing
the ultrasonic image”), Fig. 2 (noting arrows 271, 272)). Thus, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the control panel of Smith to include a rotatably mounted
touch screen control display panel, as taught by Kim, in order to “reduc[e]
the number of control keys required to operate the ultrasound diagnosis
apparatus.” Id. at 4 (citing Smith, para. 100); see also Smith, para. 101 (“An
advantage of using a touch screen as a user interface . . . is that this
arrangement can help reduce clutter in the user console area.”).
The Examiner further finds that Skwarek discloses a portable therapy
device including, inter alia, touch screen display unit 64, hinge coupling unit
36B, a drive mechanism for controlling hinge coupling unit 36B, and button
30 for controlling the drive mechanism. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Skwarek,
para. 66, lines 11–13, Fig. 4). The Examiner then determines that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan to employ Skwarek’s driving
mechanism and button to open automatically the touch screen control
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
5

display unit of Smith, as modified by Kim, because such a modification is
merely “automating a manual activity.” Id. at 5 (citing MPEP § 2144.04
(III) (“The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical
means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is
not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.”).
Appellant argues “that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
modify the combination of Smith and Kim with the teachings of Skwarek
because the alleged modification . . . would render Kim unsuitable for its
intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, “the purpose of
Kim is to maintain specific viewing angles at . . . specific heights.” Reply
Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).9 Appellant explains that because in Kim “it is
desirable that a line of [sight] from [user] 260 make a particular angle with
the display 210,” Kim’s “angle that display 210 makes with the control panel
[220] automatically changes with the change in height of control panel 220.”
Appeal Br. 6. Thus, according to Appellant, if Kim’s display unit 210 is
tilted when control panel 220 is level, “the optimal angle between the
[user’s] line of [sight] and the display 210 cannot be maintained.” Id. at 7
(emphasis omitted). To better illustrate this position Appellant provides an
annotated Figure 2 from Kim, as shown below:

9 Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed Feb. 25, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
6

Appellant’s annotated Figure 2 of Kim shows display 201 tilting from
position “C” to position “D” by angle 272 as housing part 220 is level at
position “B.” Id. at 8.
As such, Appellant contends that when tilting Kim’s display unit from
position “C” to position “D,” as shown above, “the viewing angle will
change from the optimal angle at C to a different angle (e.g., angle [at] D)
that is lower and below the [user’s] line of sight (or higher and above the
[user’s] line of” [sight]). Reply Br. 5. Thus, according to Appellant, “all of
[the] Examiner’s reasons focus on the obviousness of incorporation of the
‘drive mechanism’ as opposed to the remainder of the limitation, ‘a drive
mechanism ... to tilt the control display unit ... while the housing part ... is
level.’” Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the
arguments are not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection. The
Examiner is not modifying Smith’s ultrasound diagnosis apparatus to
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
7

include Kim’s particular control scheme10 in which the tilting angle of touch
screen control display unit 210 is automatically adjusted when the height of
control panel 220 changes. See Kim, paragraph bridging pages 7–8, Fig. 2.
Rather, the Examiner is modifying Smith’s ultrasound diagnosis apparatus to
include a rotatably mounted touch screen control display panel, as taught by
Kim, and a drive mechanism and button for controlling the drive
mechanism, as taught by Skwarek.
“To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it
is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically
inserted into the device of the other. The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.”). Here, when modifying Smith’s ultrasound
apparatus to include Kim’s rotatably mounted touch screen control display
panel and Skwarek’s drive mechanism, the drive mechanism tilts the touch
screen control display with respect to Smith’s control panel 134, which is
level with main body 14, and, thus, the height of control panel 134 does not
change.
Furthermore, we appreciate that tilting Kim’s display unit 210 when
housing part 220 is level at the above illustrated position “B” changes the

10 Kim discloses employing an automatic angle regulation apparatus 100.
See Kim, p. 8, para. 4.
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
8

user’s line of sight. However, we do not agree with Appellant that such
tilting results in a non-optimal viewing angle in the ultrasound diagnosis
apparatus of Smith, as modified by Kim and Skwarek. See Reply Br. 6. An
artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).
Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily acknowledge that
when control panel 134 is level with main body 14 in the ultrasound
diagnosing apparatus of Smith, as modified by Kim and Skwarek, tilting the
touch screen control display provides plural viewing angles to accommodate
users of different heights. See Ans. 14 (“[O]ne can combine a motor and its
control key to control . . . [a] hinge, [in the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus of
Smith, as modified by Kim and Skwarek,] as it will give more option[s] to
provide an optimal viewing angle.”).11
In particular, we note that in contrast to Kim, which automatically
adjusts the tilting angle of display 201 according to the height of control
panel 220, in the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus of Smith, as modified by
Kim and Skwarek, the tilting angle is adjusted according to the user’s height.
Appellant does not adequately explain why tilting the touch screen control
display panel in the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus of Smith, as modified by
Kim and Skwarek, does not provide for optimal viewing for persons of
different heights when control panel 134 is level with main body 14, that is,
when the height of control panel 134 does not change.12

11 Examiner’s Answer, dated Jan. 30, 2019.
12 See position “B” in Appellant’s annotated Figure 2 of Kim.
Appeal 2019-002843
Application 13/749,862
9

In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Smith, Kim, and Skwarek. Claims 3, 13–15, 29, and 30 fall with claim 1.

Rejections II and III
Appellant relies on the same arguments discussed supra with respect
to the rejection of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain
the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of claims 8 and 10 as unpatentable
over Smith, Kim, Skwarek, and Capoferri, and of claim 20 as unpatentable
over Smith, Kim, Skwarek, and Yamamoto.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 13–15,
29, 30
103(a) Smith, Kim,
Skwarek
1, 3, 13–15,
29, 30

8, 10 103(a) Smith, Kim,
Skwarek, Capoferri
8, 10
20 103(a) Smith, Kim,
Skwarek,
Yamamoto
20
Overall
outcome
1, 3, 8, 10,
13–15, 20,
29, 30

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