Ki-Wook HanDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 12, 201913749862 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation