Ex Parte Buccafusca

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

12363689 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/363,689 0113012009
57299 7590 03/24/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
OSVALDO BUCCAFUSCA
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.
2008-061USORG 2509
EXAMINER
ISAAC, STANETTAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 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):
kathy.manke@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSVALDO BUCCAFUSCA
Appeal2014-006111
Application 12/363,689
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST, and JULIA HEANEY
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEtvfENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a microelectromechanical device or apparatus.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a substrate;
a microelectronic ultrasonic transducer (MUT) disposed over
the substrate; and
a thermoelectric device proximate to the MUT and configured
to provide heat to or remove heat from the MUT.
Appeal2014-006111
Application 12/363,689
Lewandowski
Chen
The References
US 2004/0190377 Al
US 2006/0163680 Al
The Rejections
Sep.30,2004
July 27, 2006
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 10---18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Chen and claims 2, 7, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen in view of Lewandowski.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 1, 8, and 14. 1 Each of those claims requires "a
thermoelectric device proximate to the MUT and configured to provide heat
to or remove heat from the MUT".
Chen discloses a medical device ( 600) comprising a micromachined
substrate ( 606) having thereon transducers ( 660) and a thermoelectric
assembly (602) positioned within a cooling system (604) comprising
microfluidic cooling channels ( 620, 622) (i-fi-f 57, 59; Fig. 6). The
transducers ( 660) can be "an ultrasound imaging device array for monitoring
the anatomical structures of tissue during a cryosurgery or any other medical
procedure including procedures involving tissue or cell-level heating and/or
freezing" (i-f 62).
The Examiner asserts that "Chen shows in figure 6 that the MUT
device 660, is within the vicinity of the thermoelectric assembly 602 where
1 With respect to claims 2, 7, and 9 the Examiner does not rely upon any
obviousness rationale regarding the requirements of the independent claims
or rely upon Lewandowski for any disclosure the remedies the deficiency in
Chen as to the independent claims (Ans. 5).
2
Appeal2014-006111
Application 12/363,689
the cooling process is performed through the microfluidic channels, thus [the
Examiner] concludes that heat is removed from the MUT" (Ans. 7).
As stated in Jn re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967), "[a]
rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these
facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art." The Examiner's mere assertion that the thermoelectric
assembly ( 602) is in the vicinity of the transducers ( 660) and, therefore,
removes heat from them does not provide the factual basis required for
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 10-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Chen and claims 2, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Chen in view of Lewandowski are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
3