11189437 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

Ex Parte Tarakci et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 24, 2012

11189437 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/189,437 07/25/2005 Umit Tarakci PA3337US 9096 22830 7590 07/24/2012 CARR & FERRELL LLP 120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 EXAMINER HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3737 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/24/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte UMIT TARAKCI, MIR A. IMRAN, GLEN McLAUGHLIN, and XUFENG XI ____________ Appeal 2011-008417 Application 11/189,437 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and STEPHEN WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-20 (App. Br. 2; Ans. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a method for cableless coupling of acoustic transducer elements. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced in the Claims Appendix of Appellants‟ Brief. Appeal 2011-008417 Application 11/189,437 2 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith 1 and Kline-Schoder. 2 Claims 3, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, and Talbot. 3 Claims 6-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, and Kunkel. 4 Claims 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, Talbot, and Kunkel. We affirm. Definiteness: ISSUE Should the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph be summarily affirmed by the Board? ANALYSIS “If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in appellant‟s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board”. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02 (Rev. 8, July 2010). Appellants do not address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, therefore it is summarily affirmed. 5 1 Smith et al., US 5,744,898, issued April 28, 1998. 2 Kline-Schoder et al., US 5,938,612, issuedAugust 17, 1999. 3 Talbot et al., US 5,834,687, issued November 10, 1998. 4 Kunkel, III, US 5,648,942, issued July 15, 1997. 5 Appellants do not present this ground of rejection for our review (see App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-008417 Application 11/189,437 3 CONCLUSION OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is summarily affirmed. Obviousness: The combination of Smith and Kline-Schoder, with or without Talbot: ISSUE Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support a conclusion of obviousness? FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF) FF 1. Smith suggests “an ultrasound transducer array for use in diagnostic ultrasound, which provides a signal generating and receiving unit” (Ans. 4; see also Smith, Abstract). FF 2. Smith suggests “circuitry for generating and receiving ultrasonic pulses which is necessarily coupled to the transducer array” (Ans. 8). FF 3. Smith suggests “a flexible circuit coupling” (Ans. 5 and 8). FF 4. “[F]lexible circuit coupling” or “Flex circuits” fall within the scope of the term “cableless coupling” as set forth in Appellants‟ claimed invention (Ans. 4-5; Spec. 5: ¶ [0013]). FF 5. Kline-Schoder suggests “multilayer ultrasonic transducer arrays for use in clinical imaging, where the transducer elements are separated by kerfs filled with connectors made form a material that is both electrically conducting and acoustically isolating. . . . These connectors are configured to conduct an electrical signal to the transducer element” (Ans. 5; see also Ans. 8 (Kline-Schoder “is relied upon to show a transducer array having acoustic isolation properties”)). Appeal 2011-008417 Application 11/189,437 4 FF 6. The combination of Smith and Kline-Schoder fails to suggest “coupling an acoustic window to the acoustic matching assembly” (Ans. 5). FF 7. Talbot suggests “that it is known in the art to apply an acoustic window to a matching layer” (Ans. 5-6). ANALYSIS Appellants contend that “Smith does not make mention of a signal generating and receiving unit, nor the nature of the coupling between the signal generating and receiving unit and the transmit circuitry of the ultrasound transducer assembly” (App. Br. 4 (emphasis removed)). We are not persuaded (FF 1-4). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Smith suggests a signal generating and receiving unit; and cableless coupling (FF 1-4). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants‟ contention that since “Kline-Schoder makes no mention of a signal generating and receiving unit, nor „cableless coupling‟ as recited in the independent claims” it “does not address the discrepancies of the Smith disclosure discussed above” (App. Br. 4 (emphasis removed)). For the foregoing reasons we are not persuaded by Appellants‟ contention that Talbot “fails to overcome the absent teachings of Smith and Kline-Schoder” (App. Br. 4 (emphasis removed)). 6 In sum, Appellants fail to provide a persuasive argument or evidentiary basis to support a conclusion that the combination of Smith and 6 Notwithstanding Appellants‟ failure to identify the rejection over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, and Talbot as a “GROUND[] OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL”, we considered Appellants‟ argument concerning Talbot (see App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-008417 Application 11/189,437 5 Kline-Schoder, with or without Talbot fails to suggest Appellants‟ claimed subject matter. CONCLUSION OF LAW The preponderance of evidence on this record supports a conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Kline-Schoder is affirmed. Claims 2, 4, and 5 are not separately argued and fall together with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, and Talbot is affirmed. Claims 12 and 20 are not separately argued and fall together with claim 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, and Kunkel, with or without Talbot: ISSUE Should the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be summarily affirmed by the Board? ANALYSIS “If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in appellant‟s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board”. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02 (Rev. 8, July 2010). Appellants do not address the rejections of: Claims 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline- Schoder, and Kunkel; or Claims 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Appeal 2011-008417 Application 11/189,437 6 unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, Talbot, and Kunkel. 7 CONCLUSION OF LAW The rejection of claims 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, and Kunkel is summarily affirmed. The rejection of claims 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kline-Schoder, Talbot, and Kunkel is summarily affirmed. 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 alw 7 Appellants do not present these grounds of rejection for our review (see App. Br. 3).