Ex Parte Man et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

11573806 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JUNZHENG MAN, HAIYUAN LU, MARSHALL ROBINSON,
ASHRAF SAAD, and DAN SKYBA
__________

Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims directed to an
ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system for analyzing blood flow. The
Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. An ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system for analyzing
blood flow comprising:
a Doppler detector adapted for acquiring spectral Doppler
information;
a spectral Doppler analyzer, responsive to the spectral
Doppler information, which automatically traces at least one of
a mean or peak velocity of a flow spectrum;
a display, coupled to the spectral Doppler analyzer,
which displays the flow spectrum with the trace; and
a user control, operable with the display, by which a
position of the trace relative to the flow spectrum may be
manually adjusted by grabbing a point on the trace with a trace
adjustment cursor and manually moving the point and
neighboring points to different velocities of the flow spectrum.

The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Criton et al. ’637 (US
6,464,637 B1, issued Oct. 15, 2002) and Criton et al. ’674 (US
2002/0072674 A1, published Jun. 13, 2002).
II. Claims 12-14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Criton ’637, Criton ’674, and
Schmiesing et al. (US 5,634,465, issued Jun. 3, 1997).
I.
Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-11 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Criton ’637 and Criton ’674. The
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

3
Examiner finds that “Criton ’637 does not specifically disclose grabbing a
point on the trace with a trace adjustment cursor and manually moving the
point and neighboring points to different velocities on the spectrum” (Ans.
5). For the missing element, the Examiner relies on Criton ’674 and finds
that “Criton ’674 teaches a graphical user interface where points along a
trace are moved when a user actuates the points and drags them to a new
location to update the trace” (id. at 14). The Examiner concludes that “[t]he
combination of Criton ’637 and Criton ’674 replaces one user interface for
the other, and a skilled artisan would have made this combination because
doing so would provide a user friendly way of manipulating and updating
the traced value” (id.).
Appellants contend that “[t]he spectral Doppler trace that is described
by Criton ’637 is entirely different from the anatomical imaging trace of
Criton ’674” (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend that
[T]he anatomical traces described by Criton ’674 are
continuous to match the continuous boundary of an organ such
as the left ventricle. The concept by which Criton ’674 adjusts
a border tracing by rubber-banding to align the tracing with a
continuous border is logical for a naturally continuous
underlying structure. But the logic of rubber-banding is
completely absent in the case of a spectral Doppler trace that is
composed of independently-calculated and potentially-
noncontiguous spectral lines.
(Id.)
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner’s finding that the combined prior art teaches or suggests each
element of claim 1?
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

4
Findings of Fact
The following findings of fact (“FF”) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
FF1. Criton ’637 discloses “[a]n ultrasound system [that] produces
an image including a blood vessel” (Criton ’637, abstract).
FF2. The ultrasound system of Criton ’637 uses a duplex spectral
Doppler display. With reference to Figure 1, Criton ’637 discloses that
Doppler measurements are taken by pulsed Doppler along the
beam direction 22 at the sample volume location and the
estimated velocities are adjusted for the angle between the
beam line 22 and the flow direction cursor 18. The estimated
velocities are displayed in a spectral Doppler format as shown
at 20.
(Id. at col. 2, ll. 39-44.)
FF3. Criton ’637 discloses that
Two spectral displays may be shown, one using the velocities
determined by the system and another corrected by the angle set
by the user’s cursor, enabling the clinician to compare the
resultant velocities of the two. The comparison may also be
shown as a spectral display with two mean velocity traces, one
from the automatically determined vector and another corrected
in correspondence with the user’s manually set cursor.
(Id. at col. 4, ll. 36-43.)
FF4. Criton ’674 discloses an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system
that automatically performs strain rate analysis within an ultrasonic image
(Criton ’674 at 4, ¶ [0035]).
FF5. Criton ’674 discloses a rubber-banding technique for
adjusting an automatically drawn border where
The clinician can review the end diastole and systole images, as
well as all of the intervening images of the loop if desired, and
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

5
manually adjust the positions of the landmark boxes and control
point X’s if it is seen that the automated process placed a border
in an incorrect position. The clinician can slide a box or X
along the border to a new position, and can add more control
points or delete control points from the border.
(Id. at 4, ¶ [0035].)
Principles of Law
“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
However, a prima facie conclusion of obviousness may be supported by a
showing that a combination of familiar elements according to known
methods yields no more than predictable results. Id. at 401; citing United
States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-52 (1966). Furthermore, the Supreme
Court has emphasized that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
Criton ’637 discloses the manual adjustment of a velocity trace (FF3).
While “Criton ’637 does not specifically disclose a graphical user interface
where points are moved by the user,” it does disclose that “points on the
trace are moved by moving a different graphical user interface, a cursor”
(Ans. 14; cf. FF3). We are therefore not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 6).
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

6
The Examiner has reasoned that “[t]he combination of Criton ’637
and Criton ’674 replaces one user interface for the other, and a skilled
artisan would have made this combination because doing so would provide a
user friendly way of manipulating and updating the traced value” (id.). We
agree. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”). Appellants have not presented any
evidence to establish that the references are incapable of being combined as
set forth by the Examiner to achieve the method of claim 1. We thus
conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
that has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s finding that the
combined prior art teaches or suggests each element of claim 1. Claims 2-7,
9-11 and 15-19 fall with claim 1.
II.
Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 12-14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Criton ’637, Criton ’674, and
Schmiesing. Appellants present additional argument with regard to claims
14 and 20 (App. Br. 12). Claim 14 is representative.
The Examiner finds that “Schmiesing further discloses a device,
wherein the spectral Doppler analyzer further comprises means for
automatically updating a graphically displayed key value and/or calculation
of a delineated heart cycle in response to an adjustment” (Ans. 12). The
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

7
Examiner further finds that “Schmiesing calculates the same conventional
cardiac values as claimed by Appellant[s] and does so after a spectral trace
has been adjusted” (id. at 16; cf. FF6).
The Examiner finds that “Criton [’674] discloses the adjustment of a
trace to automatically adjust values that are based on the trace (see para
[0035] and para [0040])” (id. at 12).
The Examiner concludes that the combination of references would
have been obvious because the combined teachings result in a device that
“would increase the efficiency of the device and reduce the time a clinician
takes to complete the procedure and acquire the key values” (id.) and “would
instantaneously provide feedback to the clinician if the adjusted trace was
successful or an improvement over the automatic trace by showing improved
or more realistic characteristic values” (id. at 12-13).
Appellants contend that “Schmiesing et al fail[s] to disclose the
dependent Claim 14 and dependent Claim 20 limitation of a graphically
displayed key value or calculation that is updated in response to adjustment
of the trace to different velocity values” (App. Br. 11). Appellants further
contend that
Criton ’637 disclose no manual adjustment of the spectral
Doppler trace at all, and in Criton ’674 a redefinition of the size
of a structure by adjustment of a border tracing changes a
calculation of the structure's volume. It is thus seen that the
combination of the three do not show or suggest updating a
graphically displayed key value or calculation in response to
adjustment of the tracing on a spectral display.

(Id. at 12.)
Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

8
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner’s finding that the combined prior art teaches or suggests the
features of claim 14?
Additional Findings of Fact
FF6. Schmiesing discloses that
In a preferred embodiment the user is able to manually
relocate the automatically placed highlights 90, 90' along the
time (horizontal) axis. This permits the user to manually adjust
the automatically determined interval to a uniquely user
determined interval. Once the highlight lines 90, 90' are
relocated to new positions, the processor automatically
recomputes new quantified display values based on the Doppler
information of the newly selected interval.

(Schmiesing, col. 7, ll. 37-44.)
FF7. Criton ’674 discloses that “if the clinician should adjust a
drawn border by the rubberbanding technique, the computed volume of the
heart during that phase will change, affecting the ejection fraction
calculation, and the new calculation immediately appears in the
measurement box” (Criton ’674 at 5, ¶ [0040]).
Analysis
We find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 14 is prima
facie obviousness over the combination of Criton ’637, Criton ’674, and
Schmiesing. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we adopt as our own.

Appeal 2012-003416
Application 11/573,806

9
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s finding that the
combined prior art teaches or suggests the features of claim 14. Claims 12,
13, and 20 fall with claim 14.

SUMMARY
We affirm both of the rejections on appeal.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc