Ex Parte Ehlert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

11301137 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/301, 137 12/12/2005
45736 7590 12/04/2018
Christopher M. Goff (27839)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas David Ehlert
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.
21753 (27839-1527) 8938
EXAMINER
LUK, VANESSA TIBAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
uspatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS DAVID EHLERT, GEORGE BROMFIELD,
PATRICK SEAN MCNICHOLS, and
NORMAN R. STEGELMANN
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of December 12,
2005 (Spec.), Non-Final Office Action of August 26, 2016 (Non-Final),
Appeal Brief of July 18, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of October
31, 2017 (Ans.), and Reply Brief of December 5, 2017 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 20, 23-34, 36-46, 48,
49, and 52-58. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a method for manufacturing an ultrasonic
assembly including an ultrasonic waveguide coupled to an ultrasonic
resonant transducer (see, e.g., claims 1 and 26; Spec. ,r 21; Fig. 1 ( showing
ultrasonic assembly 10 with ultrasonic waveguide 12 coupled to ultrasonic
resonant transducer 14)) and a method for manufacturing an ultrasonic
medical device (see e.g., claims 11 and 38). The ultrasonic waveguide 12
( component body of claims 1 and 26) is formed by filling a preform with a
first material and a second material and hot isostatic pressing (HIP). Spec.
,r,r 21, 4 2, and 4 3. The first material and second material may be used in
powder form, slug form, solid form, or combinations thereof. Spec. ,r 43.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for manufacturing an ultrasonic
waveguide, the method comprising:
filling an ultrasonic waveguide preform having a uniform
cross-section with a first material and a second material,
wherein the first material has a higher acoustic impedance and a
greater density as compared to the second material;
hot isostatic pressing the ultrasonic waveguide preform to
consolidate the first material and the second material to form a
hot isostatically pressed component body; and
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Kimberly-Clark Worldwide,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
coupling the component body to an ultrasonic resonant
transducer to form a fusion zone on an interface between the
component body and the transducer such that the component
body is coupled to the transducer in a linear arrangement
wherein the first material is proximal to the fusion zone and the
second material is distal to the fusion zone such that the first
material is disposed between the transducer and the second
material so that during use the ultrasonic waveguide is adapted
to amplify an amplitude of a wave produced by the waveguide.
Appeal Br. 23 (claims appendix).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 26-34, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Fukumoto3 in view of
Sudol 4 and Conway, 5 further in view of Harrold, 6 and
further in view of Witt 7 or AAP A 8;
B. The rejection of claims 10, 37, 55, and 57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Fukumoto in view of Sudol and
Conway, further in view of Harrold, and further in view of
Witt or AAP A, and further in view of Stegelmann9;
C. The rejection of claims 11-17, 19, 23-25, 38--46, 48, and
52-54 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Fukumoto
3 Fukumoto et al., US 4,101,795, issued July 18, 1978.
4 Sudol et al., US 5,629,906, issued May 13, 1997.
5 Conway et al., "Hot Isostatic Pressing of Metal Powders," ASM
Handbooks Online, vol. 7 (2002).
6 Harrold et al., US 6,668,655 B2, issued Dec. 30, 2003.
7 Witt et al., US 6,068,647, issued May 30, 2000.
8 Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Spec. ,r 27.
9 Stegelmann, US 6,758,925 Bl, issued July 6, 2004.
3
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
in view of Sudol and Conway, further in view of Harrold,
and further in view of Witt or AAP A, and further in view of
Smith 10 · and
'
D. The rejection of claims 20, 49, 56, and 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Fukumoto in view of Sudol and
Conway, further in view of Harrold, and further in view of
Witt or AAP A, and further in view of Smith, and further in
view of Stegelmann,
OPINION
Rejection A: The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 26-34, and 36
In arguing against the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 26-34,
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fukumoto in view of Sudol
and Conway, further in view of Harrold, and further in view of Witt or
AAP A, Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others. Appeal Br.
10-15. We select claim 1 as representative for addressing the issues on
appeal.
Appellants contend that the combination of the references cited by the
Examiner fails to disclose or suggest the recited coupling limitation recited
in claims 1 and 26. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellants, Fukumoto
fails to couple the component body to the transducer in a linear arrangement.
Appeal Br. 10-13. However, we agree with the Examiner that Fukumoto' s
arrangement is linear as required by the claim. Ans. 3-7. As explained by
the Examiner, and shown in the Examiner's annotated Figures 10 and 14 of
10 Smith et al., US 4,211,948, issued July 8, 1980.
4
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
Fukumoto, Fukumoto's component body (60) is in a linear arrangement with
transducer 52 (transducer elements 56, 56, 54) as the structures are stacked
one above the other. Id.
Appellants further contend the Examiner's finding of a reason to bond
Fukumoto's transducer elements 52 to the component body (impedance
matching layer 60) by welding or brazing based on the teachings of Harrold
is in error. Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 3--4. In making this argument,
Appellants contends there is nothing in Harrold that discloses or suggests the
recited coupling. Id.
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding of a reason to couple Fukumoto's transducer elements 52 to the
component body (impedance matching layer 60) by brazing or welding.
This is because, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 7), Fukumoto itself
suggests that the component body (impedance matching layer 60) be placed
so as to "intimately contact and entirely cover the front electrode films 56 of
the transducer elements 52." Fukumoto col. 9, 11. 29-34. Although
Fukumoto does not expressly state the two components are bonded, bonding
would have been recognized by the ordinary artisan as a method of insuring
intimate contact of the two parts in the process of manufacturing
Fukumoto's ultrasonic probe such that the probe does not come apart and the
ultrasonic waves are transmitted and received between the parts as intended.
The parts to be brought into intimate contact per the teachings of Fukumoto
are the metal electrode 56, which may be Ag, Al, Au, Cu or In, of the
transducer element 52 and the ceramic material of low impedance layer 60a.
Fukumoto col. 8, 1. 68---col. 9, 1. 4, col. 10, 11. 3-9. Welding or brazing were
5
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
known methods of bonding metals and ceramics as evidenced by Harrold.
Harrold describes bonding metal acoustic waveguides to vanes typically
made from nickel-cobalt coated with a thermal barrier coating such as yttria-
zirconia. Harold col. 3, 11. 43-58, col. 4, 11. 22-36. Sudol and Conway also
provide evidence that welding, brazing, diffusion bonding, and hot isostatic
pressing (HIP) were all known methods of bonding metals and ceramics.
See Sudol col. 4, 11. 3-29, col. 5, 11. 23-38 (diffusion bonding of low and
high impedance layers of aluminum and tungsten); Conway 2 of 3
Introduction, 1 of 4 HIP Technology ( explaining that HIP is a process of
using hot high pressure gas isostatically applied to a workpiece within a
special pressure vessel to diffusion bond dissimilar materials), 1 of 5 HIP
Diffusion Bonding versus Other Joining Processes ( comparing fusion
welding, diffusion bonding, and brazing).
Appellants also urge that the Examiner has applied a large number
of references from diverse fields and, for reasons similar to those of the
decision in Ex parte Thomas, Appeal No. 2014-000712 (Ex parte Thomas,
Application 12/208,638, Decision dated November 4, 2016), the present
combination of five references should be overturned. Appeal Br. 14--15;
Reply Br. 4--5.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner's reliance on five references
rises to the level of reversible error in this case. As stated in In re Gorman,
it is not the number of references that is determinative. In re Gorman, 933
F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). What is determinative is whether there is
any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the selections made by
the applicant. Id. When combining the teachings of references to establish
6
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
obviousness, one must ask what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981 ). The question is whether making the combination is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). An examiner can
establish obviousness by providing a rationale reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the known elements in the fashion
required by the claim. Id. at 418.
The Examiner has found reasons for making the combination and
Appellants' broad brush argument that the number of references is too many
and the differences in the areas of technology too diverse does not identify
errors in the specific findings and conclusions of the Examiner. Fukumoto
teaches forming an ultrasonic probe with a two-material component body
(impedance matching layer 60) intimately contacting transducer element 52.
Fukumoto does not provide specific details on how to make the probe and,
thus, the ordinary artisan would have looked to known processes of bonding
and intimately contacting the elements to form it. The Examiner applies
Sudol, Conway, and Harrold as evidence to support findings that using HIP,
brazing, and welding were known methods in the prior art for achieving the
bonding and intimate contact that Fukumoto desires. Non-Final 3-5. The
Examiner merely uses Witt as evidence to show that waveguides may be
configured to amplify vibrations (Non-Final 5), a finding Appellants do not
dispute. Appeal Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 1-5.
7
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection based on the number of the references applied or their diversity.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 26-34, and 36.
Rejection B: The Rejection of Claims 10, 37, 55, and 57
In addressing the rejection of claims 10, 37, 55, and 57 in which the
Examiner further applies Stegelmann, Appellants do not add any further
arguments directed to the additional findings and conclusions made by the
Examiner, but instead argue that Stegelmann fails to teach or suggest a
method as recited in claims 1 and 26 and, under the Ex parte Thomas ruling,
the claims are not obvious in view of not only the previously discussed five
references but also in view of adding a sixth reference directed to a different
area of technology. Appeal Br. 16. These arguments fail to identify a
reversible error in the Examiner's specific findings in the rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 10, 37, 55, and 57.
Rejection C: The Rejection of claims 11-17, 19, 23-25, 38-46, and 52-54
To reject claims 11-17, 19, 23-25, 38--46, 48, and 52-54, the
Examiner relies on the references used to reject claim 1 and adds Smith.
Non-Final 8-10. Appellants reproduce claims 11 and 38, the independent
claims, contend that, as they previously argued, Fukumoto, Sudol, Harrold,
and Conway, either alone or in combination with Witt, fail to teach or
suggest coupling as recited in claims 11 and 38. Appellants then add that
Smith fails to overcome the shortcomings as Smith is directed to an
ultrasonic transducer array for use in water tanks and with human subjects in
8
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
steered beam imagers to make wide angle sector scans, but fails to disclose
the method of claims 11 and 38. Appeal Br. 17-19. Appellants also rely on
Ex parte Thomas to support an argument that adding a sixth reference
supports a conclusion of non-obviousness. Appeal Br. 19. Because
Appellants' arguments do not address the specific findings and conclusions
made by the Examiner in the rejection, Appellants have not identified a
reversible error in the rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 11-17, 19, 23-25, 38--46, and 52-
54.
Rejection D: The Rejection of Claims 20, 49, 56, and 58
To reject claims 20, 49, 56, and 58, the Examiner relies on the
combination applied to claims 11 and 38 and further adds Stegelmann. Non-
Final 10-11. Appellants do not present arguments directed to the additional
findings and conclusions made by the Examiner. Appellants have not
identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 20, 49, 56, and 58.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
9
Appeal2018-001647
Application 11/301,137
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
10