Ex Parte Zhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2014

12088097 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte IRIS ZHU, DAN SKYBA, and CEDRIC CHENAL
____________________

Appeal 2012-0031661
Application 12/088,0972
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 23,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 15, 2011).
2 The real party in interest, identified by Appellants, is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V., Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to medical ultrasound imaging
systems and, more particularly, to a user interface in an ultrasound imaging
system that allows for creation and management of measurement-based
calculations” (Spec. 1, ll. 47).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. In an ultrasound diagnostic system, a method for
managing an ultrasound measurement-based calculation, the
method comprising:
[(a)] displaying, on an ultrasound system display, from
a group each of a plurality of operations necessary to manage
the ultrasound measurement-based calculation;
[(b)] within each operation, accepting information from
the user necessary for managing the ultrasound measurement-
based calculation;
[(c)] verifying the accepted information within each
operation before displaying another operation in the group;
[(d)] using the information accepted and verified in the
current operation to determine which of the operations in the
group is to be displayed in the next operation; and
[(e)] at the conclusion of the final operation, saving the
changes of the measurement-based calculation in the ultrasound
system.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–16 and 18–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Snider (US. 5,553,620, iss. Sept. 10, 1996) and Akaki
(US 2004/0207661 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2004).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Snider, Akaki, and Pagoulatos (US 7,601,121 B2, iss. Oct. 13, 2009).

Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–12
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7–11) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Snider and Akaki. Instead, we agree with, and adopt the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments as set forth at pages 10–11
and 12–14 of the Answer.
Snider is directed to a system used to make measurements from a
displayed ultrasound image (Snider, col. 1, ll. 6–12), and describes that
measurement selection menus are associated with potential conditions of the
patient and arranged such that measurements non-essential to evaluating the
patient’s condition are not displayed to the system user (id. at col. 1, ll. 52–
60; col. 2, ll. 35–43). Snider, thus, describes that the user of the ultrasound
measuring system can customize the list of measurements by disabling
specific tests so that the disabled measurements are not displayed for
selection (id. at col. 8, ll. 39–43).
Figures 4–8 of Snider show the menu structures and measures for a
preferred embodiment of the invention.
App
App

Figu
the S
eal 2012-0
lication 12
Snider’s

re 4 “is a d
nider inve
03166
/088,097
Figure 4 i
iagram of
ntion. Sn
s reproduc
a menu st
ider, col. 7
4
ed below.
ructure for
, ll. 6264

a preferre
.

d embodiment” of
Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

5
As shown in Figure 4, when a user selects “Cardiac Calculations”
menu 50, the user is shown a list of cardiac exam types. If the user then
selects “Valve Stenosis,” for example, menu 54 is displayed, and lists five
exam types, i.e., aortic valve, pulmonic valve, mitral valve, tricuspid valve,
and generic PISA, for selection. If the user next selects “Mitral Valve,” a
menu is displayed that lists the six measurements required for an exam for
mitral valve stenosis. The menu structure, thus, effectively guides the user
to a set of suggested measurements that will allow the user to effectively
evaluate the patient’s potential condition without requiring the user to skip
through a large menu of measurement selections, many of which may be
irrelevant to evaluating the potential condition (see Snider, Abstract, col. 7,
l. 31 – col. 8, l. 44).
Akaki discloses a medical imaging apparatus that displays
predetermined information in a differentiable manner from other displayed
information (Akaki, Abstract). Akaki describes that when a measurement
parameter selection menu is displayed, a control unit reads out parameters to
be differentiated and a differentiating manner from a hard disk. The control
unit then causes the parameters to be displayed in a differentiable manner
according to the read-out differentiating manner (Akaki ¶ 65). Thus, for
example, in Akaki’s Figure 5, diastole 120a and LVIDs 110f are displayed
in bold face (i.e., in a different font) and underlined so as to be
differentiated.
App
App

migh
(Br.
custo
persu
As th
rel[y
rejec
that
infor
grou
that
eal 2012-0
lication 12
Akaki’s

Figure 5
Appellan
t customiz
9) and tha
mizing m
asive at le
e Examin
] (i.e., cus
ted claim(
We also
neither Sn
mation wi
p,” i.e., lim
Snider disc
03166
/088,097
Figure 5 i
shows an
ts argue th
e the mea
t “[l]ike [S
easuremen
ast becaus
er correctl
tomize the
s)” (Ans.
are not pe
ider nor A
thin each o
itation (c
loses “on
s reproduc
exemplary
at “[Snid
surement c
nider], Ak
t calculati
e it is not
y observes
measurem
11).
rsuaded of
kaki disclo
peration b
), as recite
ly a backg
6
ed below.
display o
er] provide
alculation
aki teache
ons” (id. a
commensu
, “the feat
ent calcu
Examiner
ses or sug
efore disp
d in claim
round calc
f a touch c
[s] no det
s displaye
s no meth
t 10). Tha
rate with
ures upon
lations) a
error by A
gests “ver
laying ano
1 (Br. 10)
ulation inv

ommand s
ails as to h
d in the m
od or appa
t argumen
the scope
which [Ap
re not reci
ppellants
ifying the
ther opera
. Appellan
olving a m
creen.
ow a user
enus”
ratus for
t is not
of claim 1
pellants]
ted in the
’ argumen
accepted
tion in the
ts argue
easured
.
t

Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

7
value” and that “[a]lthough [Snider] disclose[s] that additional calculations
can be added, there is no teaching of how to do so, or whether such a
calculation would be verified before proceeding to another operation”
(id., citing Snider, col. 8, ll. 45–65). Again, Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 does not recite a step of verifying a calculation.
Appellants argue that Akaki also fails to disclose or suggest using
information from the current operation to determine which operation to
display next (Br 10–11). Akaki discloses that when ultrasound images are
displayed on a monitor, the user operates a touch command screen, a
keyboard, and/or a track ball for various measurements on an objective part
of the displayed ultrasound image, and that a control unit implements
measurements in accordance with the user’s operation, and causes the
measurement results and results calculated based on the measurement results
to be displayed on the monitor (Akaki ¶ 41). As such, Akaki discloses
“using the information accepted and verified in the current operation to
determine which of the operations in the group is to be displayed in the next
operation,” i.e., limitation (d), as recited in claim 1.
Finally, Appellants argue that paragraph 42 of Akaki, on which the
Examiner relies (Ans. 11), does not disclose or suggest “saving the changes
of the measurement-based calculation in the ultrasound system,”
i.e., limitation (e), as recited in claim 1 (Br. 11). We disagree.
Akaki describes in paragraph 42 that a user may operate the touch
command screen, keyboard, and/or the track ball 15 to differentiate specific
measurement parameters and calculation parameters displayed in the touch
command, and that the control unit, in response to the user’s operation,
Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

8
causes the specified measurement parameters and/or calculation parameters
to be displayed in a differentiable manner from other measurement and
calculation parameters. Akaki describes that these changes, i.e., information
regarding the differentiation, are stored, i.e., saved, on a hard drive disk. As
such, Akaki discloses the argued limitation.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claims 2–12, which are not argued separately.
Independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14–16
Independent claim 13 is directed to an ultrasonic diagnostic system
comprising “an ultrasound image display for displaying an ultrasound
image” and “an analysis package stored on a computer readable medium and
operatively connected to the image display, the analysis package providing a
user the ability to manage an ultrasound measurement-based calculation”
(Br. 17).
Appellants argue that neither Snider nor Akaki discloses or suggests
an analysis package, as called for in claim 13, because Snider and Akaki
“only suggest the selection for display of calculations which are already
resident in the system” (Br. 11–12). That argument is not persuasive
because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim; there is nothing
in claim 13 that requires the calculation to be one that is not already resident
in the system.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claim 13 and dependent claims 14–16, which are not argued
separately.
Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

9
Independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19–22
Independent claim 18 is directed to a method, in an ultrasound
diagnostic system, “for creating and managing ultrasound measurement-
based equations” comprising:
displaying on an ultrasound system display from a
command sequence each of a plurality of steps necessary to
create or manage at least one measurement-based equation;
at each step, accepting information from the user
necessary for creating or managing the measurement-based
equation;
verifying the accepted information; and
saving the accepted and verified information of the
measurement-based equation in the ultrasound system.

We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Snider and Akaki only
contemplate methods for organizing and selecting equations residing in the
system, and do not disclose or suggest steps, as recited in claim 18, for
creating a management-based equation. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 18 and dependent
claims 19–22.
Dependent claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 15, which depends, in turn, from
claim 13. Claim 15 recites that the analysis package of claim 13 “can be
configured for a particular type of diagnostic application,” and claim 17
recites that “the particular type of diagnostic application comprises OB.”
Appellants argue that claim 17 is allowable because Pagoulatos does
not cure the alleged deficiencies of Snider and Akaki, as set forth with
respect to claim 13 (Br. 13). We are not persuaded, for the reasons set forth
Appeal 2012-003166
Application 12/088,097

10
above, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1822 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
llw