Ex Parte OGASAWARA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2018

13662579 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/662,579 10/29/2012
107962 7590
Yoshida & Associates, LLC
1628 J.F.K. Blvd
Suite 1350, Eight Penn Center
Philadelphia, PA 19103
06/05/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oichi OGASAWARA
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.
SUZ-1031 1675
EXAMINER
KINNARD, LISA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2018 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):
Ip.law.phila@gmail.com
docketing@yoshida-and-associates.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOICHI OGASAWARA
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579 1
Technology Center 3700
Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFREY N. FRED MAN, and JOHN
G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims directed to an ultrasonic diagnostic
apparatus. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Appellants appeal the rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
Wehave jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The rejections are reversed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 3-6 stand rejected by the Examiner as follows:
Claim 3 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Misono (US 2008/0097208 Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2008) and Van Creveld (US
2004/0171935 Al, pub. Sept. 2, 2004). Ans. 2.
1 The Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") 3 lists Toshiba Medical Systems
Corporation of Japan as the real-party-in-interest.
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
Claim 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Misono, Van Creveld, and Fallows (US 2005/0043620 Al, pub. Feb. 24,
2005). Ans. 5.
Claims 5 and 6 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
ofMisono, Van Creveld, and Miyama (US 2012/0016242 Al, pub. Jan. 19,
2012). Ans. 5.
There are two independent claims on appeal. Claim 3 is
representative and is reproduced below (bracketed numerals and emphasis
added; indentations added for clarity):
3. An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising [ 1] a
first housing containing a first processor and connecting with an
ultrasonic probe and [2] a second housing containing a second
processor,
wherein the second housing is configured to be
detachably connected to the first housing,
wherein the first housing further comprises [3] a
transmission/reception circuit configured to transmit/receive an
ultrasonic wave to/from an object through the ultrasonic probe
and generate a reception signal, and [ 4] a connector configured
to connect the first housing to the second housing,
wherein the first processor executes:
[ 1 a] to generate a first ultrasonic image at a first
processing speed and with a first processing function based on
the reception signal,
[ 1 b] to detect connection between the first housing and
the second housing,
[ 1 c] to control the transmission/reception circuit and
generating the first ultrasonic image, and
[Id] to decontrol the transmission/reception circuit and
generating the first ultrasonic image upon the detection of the
connection, and
the second processor executes:
[2a] at a second processing speed faster than the first
processing speed and with a second processing function
2
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
performing a larger number of functions than the first
processing function,
[2b] to generate a second ultrasonic image based on the
reception signal upon detection of the connection, the second
ultrasonic image having larger data than the first ultrasonic
image, and
[2c] to control the transmission/reception circuit and
generating the second ultrasonic image upon the detection of
the connection, wherein
the first processor further executes:
[ 1 e] to generate first B-mode data based on the reception
signal, and
[ 1 f] to generate the first ultrasonic image at the first
processing speed and with the first processing function based
on the first B-mode data, and
the second processor further executes:
[2d] to generate second B-mode data having larger data
than the first B-mode data based on the reception signal, and
[2e] to generate the second ultrasonic image at the second
processing speed and with the second processing function based
on the second B-mode data.
Claim 5 has the same requirement of claim 3 of having first and
second housings, each with a processor, and with "the second housing ...
configured to be detachably connected to the first housing."
As explained below, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that
Misono and Van Creveld describe or suggest the first and second housings
and "detachably connected" limitations recited in claims 3 and 5. Because
such limitations are required by all the rejected claims, we reverse all the
rejections. The discussion below addresses these limitations.
3
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
REJECTIONS BASED ON MISONO AND VAN CREVELD
Claim 3 is directed to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising:
[ 1] a first housing containing a first processor; and [2] a second housing
containing a second processor. The "second housing is configured to be
detachably connected to the first housing." The "first housing" is required
by the claim to be "connecting with an ultrasonic probe."
The claim has further requirements [ 1 a] to [ 1 f] concerning the
functionality of the first processor and also requirements [2a] to [2e]
concerning the functionality of the second processor. The claim requires
[Id] that, when a connection is detected between the first and second
housing, the transmission/reception circuit is decontrolled and the first
ultrasonic image is not generated. The claim requires that upon occurrence
of [Id] and the connection is detected, the second ultrasonic image is
generated ([2b ],[2c ]).
The Examiner found that the Misono describes an ultrasonic
diagnostic apparatus comprising first and second housings as recited in the
claims. Final Act. 2. The Examiner found the Misono does not describe a
first processor which performs [Id], [le] and [lfJ nor a second processor
which performs the recited functions [2a] - [2e]. Id. at 4.
The Examiner found that Van Creveld describes [Id] "to decontrol the
transmission/reception circuit . . . upon the detection of the connection" and
determined it would have been obvious to implement it in Misono "for the
purpose of selectively using probes to perform various tasks." Final Act.
4--5.
The Examiner found that Van Creveld "does not explicitly disclose
details regarding employing first and second processors to perform the tasks
4
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
listed in 4c--4e [a reference to paragraph numbers in the Final Action, which
we find to be [ 1 e] and [ 1 f] of the first processor and [2a] - [2e] of the second
processor]." Id. Despite this statement about the lack of explicit details, the
Examiner stated it would have been obvious to have implemented them in
Misono's apparatus. Id. The Examiner further found "it would have been
obvious to acquire a second B-mode data at a second processing speed [2d].
[2e ], because a higher resolution image would require a different processing
speed." Id. at 5 (citing paragraph 0159 of Van Creveld).
Appellant argues that the Examiner misconstrued the claim by stating
in the Final Action "wherein the second housing is configured to be
detachably connected to the first probe" and citing paragraph 4 7 to support
this structure (Final Act. 2), when the claim actually states that "the second
housing is configured to be detachably connected to the first housing."
Appeal Br. 11-12.
Appellant argues that Misono does not describe two processors as
stated by the Examiner, identifying "Signal Processing Unit" 36 of Figure 1
of Misono as evidence of the single processor. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erroneously interpreted the
independent claims to require two ultrasonic probes, when only one probe is
explicitly recited. Appeal Br. 12.
Discussion
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in misconstruing
claims 3 and 5 and failing to identify all the structural features of claims 3
and 5 in the cited publications, either explicitly or as suggested by the
combination of publications.
5
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
As stated by Appellant, Misono teaches a single housing 4 with a
single processor 36 having two detachable probes 3 and 2. Misono, Fig. 1.
The claim, however, requires two detachable housings. The Examiner, in
the Final Action referred to a second housing detachably connected to a first
probe, citing paragraph 4 7 of Misono for this teaching. Final Act. 2.
Paragraph 4 7 of Misono states:
[0047] The ultrasonic observing apparatus 4 includes a
machine-side connector receptacle 31 as a first connecting unit
detachably connecting to the machine-side connector 16 of the
mechanical scanning ultrasonic probe 2, and an electronics-side
connector receptacle 32 as a second connecting unit detachably
connecting to the electronics-side connector 24 of the electronic
scanning ultrasonic endoscope 3.
Figure 1 of Misono, reproduced below, shows the structures described
in paragraph 47:
6
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
MACHINE-SIDE
TIMING r+---+----i
CONTROLLER
!
38
MONITOR
(
5
Figure 1 of Misono, as discussed by Appellant, is a drawing of an
ultrasonic observing apparatus having probes 3 and 2 detachably connected
via connectors 32 and 16, to the single housing 4. There is only a single
housing 4, not two housings as required by the claim. There is also only a
single processing unit 3 6 in the housing 4, not two as recited in all the
rejected claims.
If the Examiner intends to construe probes 3 and 2 to be the recited
first and second housings and housing 4 as the connector between them, the
rejection is still deficient because the claim requires each housing [1] and [2]
to contain its own processor. However, as shown in Fig. 1, the housing 4
contains a single processor 3 6, but probes 3 and 2 lack a processor. The
7
Appeal2017-004927
Application 13/662,579
Examiner stated that two processors would have been obvious (Ans. 10), but
did not explain why it would have been obvious to have placed processors in
the probe 3 and 2 "housings," rather than in housing 4. The Examiner also
did not adequately explain why it would have been obvious to utilized two
signal processors in place of Misono's single signal processing unit 36.
Appellant expressly identified the "housing" and "detachably
connected" as errors in the Appeal Brief, but the Examiner did not provide
an adequate explanation in the Answer addressing the deficiency. Ans. 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
did not identify all the structural features in the cited publications, nor
explain why they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
REVERSED
8