Ex Parte Yoshida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2016

12479328 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/479,328 0610512009 Tetsuya YOSHIDA
22850 7590 10/07/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
343 l l 7US2SX 1214
EXAMINER
AKAR, SERKAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSUY A YOSHIDA, TETSUY A KAW AGISHI,
NAOHISA KAMIY AMA, YOKO OKAMURA, and
Y ASUHIKO ABE
Appeal 2015-000087 1'2
Application 12/479,328
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," June 5, 2009),
Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed June 10, 2014), and Reply Brief ("Reply
Br.," filed Sept. 19, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Nov. 14, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed July 21, 2014 ).
2 According to Appellants, Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba and Toshiba
Medical Systems Corporation are the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000087
Application 12/479,328
According to Appellants, the "invention relates to an ultrasonic
diagnostic apparatus capable of three-dimensional (3D) scanning." Spec.
i-f 1. Claims 1 and 11 are the only independent claims. See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of the
appealed claims.
Id.
1. An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, comprising:
an ultrasonic probe configured to generate an ultrasonic
beam;
a volume data set collector configured to collect a plurality
of volume data sets corresponding to a plurality of three-
dimensional scan ranges via the ultrasonic probe, the plurality of
three-dimensional scan ranges partly overlapping one another;
a region of interest setting device configured to set, in
accordance with a user instruction, a region of interest on a first
tomogram generated from a particular one of the plurality of
volume data sets, the region of interest being set within a scan
range of the plurality of three-dimensional scan ranges that
corresponds to the particular one of the plurality of volume data
sets;
a tomogram generator configured to generate the first
tomogram from the particular one of the volume data sets and
also generate a second tomogram associated with a section
including the region of interest from another volume data set of
the plurality of volume data sets that has a corresponding three-
dimensional scan range that includes the region of interest,
wherein the tomogram generator specifies a position of the
second tomogram in the another volume data set; and
a display configured to display the first tomogram and the
second tomogram.
2
Appeal2015-000087
Application 12/479,328
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 6,500, 118 B 1, iss. Dec. 31, 2002) and
Ohtake (US 2005/0119569 Al, pub. June 2, 2005).
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 19 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a) as
unpatentable over Hashimoto, Ohtake, and Sato (US 2007 /0239015 Al, pub.
Oct. 11, 2007).
See Final Action 2-7; see Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, among other features,
a tomogram generator configured to generate the first tomogram
from the particular one of the volume data sets and also generate
a second tomogram associated with a section including the
region of interest from another volume data set of the plurality of
volume data sets that has a corresponding three-dimensional scan
range that includes the region of interest.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue that the rejection is in error
because neither reference discloses the claimed tomogram generator. See
Appeal Br. 6-8; see also Reply Br. 3-5. Based on our review of the record,
for the reasons set forth below, we agree with Appellants, and, thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Hashimoto teaches the
tomogram generator as set forth above. See Final Action 3. The Examiner
relies on Hashimoto's column 8, lines 25-35. See id. We agree with
Appellants, however, that this portion of Hashimoto discusses how volume
data is stored within a memory, but does not discuss a tomogram generator
generating a first tomogram from a data set and generating a second
3
Appeal2015-000087
Application 12/479,328
tomogram for the same region from another data set. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6.
Hashimoto's column 19, lines 55-62, and column 20, lines 40-52, also do
not disclose the above-described tomogram generator. Adv. Act. 2 (mailed
Apr. 3, 2014).
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner determines that
[ o Jn the contrary, Hashimoto teaches (generate a second
tomogram associated with the section including the region of
interest from another volume data set of the plurality of volume
data sets that has a corresponding three-dimensional scan range
that includes the region of interest) by stating "it is possible to
reconstruct ... an arbitrary tomographic image from the acquired
[volume] data." (col. 19 lines 33-35). "As it is possible to
identify volume data (three-dimensional image data) about what
part of the body and from which direction an ultrasonic probe has
been applied, it is possible to identify . . . an arbitrary
tomographic image about from what part of the body has been
observed and from which direction this part has been observed."
(col. 19 lines 55-62).
Answer 3 (square brackets original). The Examiner does not establish,
however, that the reconstruction of an image from the acquired volume data
teaches a tomogram generator generating a first tomogram from a data set
and generating a second tomogram for the same region from another data
set, as required by claim 1.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-10 that depend
from claim 1, because the Examiner does not establish that any other
reference remedies the rejection of claim 1. Still further, we do not sustain
the rejections of independent claim 11 or claims 12-19 depending from
claim 11, inasmuch as claim 11 includes a limitation similar to that
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
4
Appeal2015-000087
Application 12/479,328
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claim 1-19.
REVERSED
5