Ex Parte Nordgren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12600925 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/600,925 11/19/2009 Tim Nordgren
24737 7590 06/23/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2007P01007WOUS 3331
EXAMINER
HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIM NORDGREN
and DAVID RUST
Appeal2014-002258
Application 12/600,925
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA,
and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 11 and 17 are cancelled.
Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002258
Application 12/600,925
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A user-controlled wireless ultrasound probe which
transmits image data wirelessly to a host system for display
compnsmg:
an array transducer;
a probe control circuit coupled to the array transducer;
a transceiver coupled to the probe control circuit which
acts to wirelessly transmit image information signals to the host
system;
a battery;
a probe case housing the array transducer, probe control
circuit, transceiver, and battery; and
a user interface, located on the probe integral to and
liquid-tight with the probe case and coupled to the probe
control circuit, the user interface having a display of signal
strength and remaining battery power and one or more user
controls by which a user controls a scanning procedure.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hunt (US 2003/0139664 Al, pub. July 24, 2003) and
Urbano (2008/0114248 Al, pub. May 15, 2008).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hunt, Urbano, and Warner (US 2007/0004980 Al, pub. Jan. 4, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-9, 12-16, and 18 as unpatentable over Hunt and Urbano
The Examiner found that Hunt discloses a user-controlled wireless
ultrasound probe as recited in claims 1 and 12 including a user interface
located on the probe integral to and liquid-tight with the probe case, but not
a user interface that displays signal strength and remaining battery power.
Ans. 2, 4; Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2014-002258
Application 12/600,925
The Examiner found that Urbano teaches a portable ultrasound device
that displays battery status and signal strength ("quality of data reception")
on the main unit and the probe via LED indicator lights. Ans. 2-3 (citing
Urbano i-fi-149-50, 194--195), 4--5 (same); Final Act. 5. The Examiner found
that Urbano discloses a user interface embodiment in Figure 11. Ans. 3, 5.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
the portable device of Hunt with Urbano's battery status and signal status
ultrasound monitoring to receive instant feedback on device operation/status
during a medical procedure from the main unit or the probe. Id. at 3, 5.
Appellants argue that paragraphs 49-50 of Urbano describe displaying
probe operational status on a display of main unit 130 rather than on probe
100, as claimed. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants also argue that
this probe status information that is transmitted to, and displayed on, main
unit 130 includes power status and "quality of data transmission," neither of
which correspond to the claimed signal strength. Appeal Br. 1 O; Reply Br.
4--5. Appellants further argue that paragraph 194 of Urbano describes a
display on main unit 130, and paragraph 195 describes LED indicators on
the probe to indicate battery charge status but not signal strength, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. Appellants also assert that Urbano's teaching of
displaying quality of data reception on user interface display 1114 of a probe
is not a teaching of displaying signal strength. Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Urbano teaches or suggests a probe "user interface having a display of signal
strength" as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. The Examiner has not
explained adequately how the display of "quality data reception" teaches or
suggests the display of signal strength on a probe display, as claimed.
3
Appeal2014-002258
Application 12/600,925
Paragraph 219 of Urbano teaches that user interface 1108 for probe
1105 may provide an indication to the probe user of power status, quality of
transmission of digital data, availability of power required for transmission
of digital data, and quality of data transmission. Urbano i-f 219. Although an
exact disclosure of "signal strength" is not required, the Examiner still must
explain how the display of "quality of data transmission" corresponds to the
display of signal strength, as claimed. Signal strength may affect the quality
of transmission. However, the Examiner has not explained how a display of
quality of data transmission necessarily also discloses the display of "signal
strength," or how a display of signal strength would have been obvious in
view the disclosure of displaying the quality of data transmission in Urbano.
In this regard, Appellants disclose that when wireless probe 10 is
operated within inner range 320 of host system 40, signal strength indicator
132 will indicate at or near maximum strength. When operation is beyond
this range but within maximum range 322, signal strength will begin to show
low or inadequate strength and "operation of the wireless probe may become
unreliable and consistent high quality live images may not be received by the
host." Spec. 29:22-30:8 (emphasis added), Fig. 11. Therefore, Appellants
disclose that signal strength and quality of data transmission may be related
features of wireless transmissions in that low or weak signal strength may
result in lesser-quality data transmissions. However, these features measure
different aspects of wireless communications. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d
743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency ... may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.").
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 12-16, and 18.
4
Appeal2014-002258
Application 12/600,925
Claim 10 as unpatentable over Hunt, Urbano, and Warner
The Examiner relied on Warner to teach an OLED touchscreen probe
display, as recited in claim 10, and not to overcome deficiencies of Hunt or
Urbano as to claim 1 from which claim 10 depends indirectly. Ans. 3--4, 6.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18 for Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The Examiner also rejected claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18 provisionally
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over two
co-pending Application Nos. 12/600,882 and 12/600,897. Final Act. 3--4.
Because both applications are still pending, it would be premature to review
the merits of the provisional double patenting rejections.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18.
REVERSED
5