Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2021

2020003910 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2021)

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.
15/283,228 09/30/2016 Andre Duerr 1576-2032 4774
10800 7590 01/27/2021
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
CHOI, YOUNHEE JEON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2021 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ANDRE DUERR, THOMAS ROCZNIK,
CHRISTIAN PETERS, and JOCHEN STEHLE
__________

Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–9. Appeal Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below,
we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Robert
Bosch GmbH.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates “generally to systems and
methods for measuring blood velocity, and, in particular, to systems and
methods for measuring blood velocity using phased arrays.” Spec. ¶ 1.
System claim 1 and method claim 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
at least one piezoelectric transducer array including a
plurality of piezoelectric transducer elements, the transducer
array configured to be placed on an area of skin;
a phased array control system configured to generate a first
electrical actuation signal for actuating the transducer elements
to emit first ultrasonic signals, the first electrical actuation signal
being phase shifted for each of the transducer elements;
a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) control system
configured to generate a second electrical actuation signal for
actuating the transducer elements to emit second ultrasonic
signals, the second electrical actuation signal being different for
each of the transducer elements;
a switching device configured to switchably connect the
phased array control system to the transducer array and to
switchably connect the MIMO control system to the transducer
array; and
a measurement control system configured to actuate the
switching device,
wherein the measurement control system is configured to
actuate the switching device to connect the MIMO control
system to the transducer array so that the transducer array is
operated as a MIMO transducer array to detect a location of a
blood vessel, and
wherein the measurement control system is configured to
cause the switching device to connect the phased array control
system to the transducer array after the location of the blood
vessel has been detected, the phased array control system being
configured to actuate the transducer array using phase shifting to
steer an ultrasonic beam toward the location of the blood vessel
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

3
detected when the transducer array was operated as the MIMO
transducer array.

Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES

Name Reference Date
Papadofrangakis et al.
(“Papadofrangakis”)
US 4,257,278 Mar. 24, 1981
Seyed-Bolorforosh et al.
(“Seyed-Bolorforosh”)
US 5,902,241 May 11, 1999
Saulnier et al.
(“Saulnier”)
US 2015/0244473 A1 Aug. 27, 2015

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Papadofrangakis and Saulnier.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Papadofrangakis, Saulnier, and Seyed-Bolorforosh.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6–8
as unpatentable over Papadofrangakis and Saulnier
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 under
different headings. See Appeal Br. 5, 9. Regarding claim 7, Appellant
contends that “for substantially the same reasons as given above for claim 1,
the rejection of claim 7 “should be overturned.” Appeal Br. 9. Regarding
dependent claims 3, 6, and 8, Appellant does not proffer separate arguments
therefor and instead states, “for at least the same reasons as given above,”
their rejection “should be overturned as well.” Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly,
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

4
we select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 3 and 6–
8) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Papadofrangakis for
disclosing the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 6–8. However, the
Examiner acknowledges that Papadofrangakis does not explicitly disclose a
MIMO control system “operating a MIMO transducer array.” Final Act. 8.
The Examiner relies on Saulnier for such disclosure.2 See Final Act. 9. The
Examiner finds that ultrasound systems “with transducer arrays” and also
“with a MIMO control system” are known in the art. Final Act. 9. The
Examiner thus reasons that a skilled person “could have combined the
elements as claimed by known methods . . . to have a MIMO control system
operating the transducer array as a MIMO transducer array.” Final Act. 9.
The Examiner states that this is the case because “the combination would
have yielded nothing more than predictable results.” Final Act. 9; see also
Ans. 9. Further, the Examiner states that “[t]he motivation would have been
to ‘mitigate cross talk among the channels’ . . . as taught by Saulnier
([0010]).” Final Act. 9.
Appellant discusses the Examiner’s rejection and acknowledges that
“Saulnier discloses actuating transducer arrays using MIMO techniques.”
Appeal Br. 6. Regardless, Appellant contends that “Papadofrangakis Does
Not Disclose ‘the phased array control system . . . was operated as the
MIMO transducer array.’” Appeal Br. 6. This assertion is incorrect for

2 Appellant subsequently argues that, as regarding the MIMO teaching, “the
Examiner asserted that Papadofrangakis discloses this limitation.” Appeal
Br. 7. This argument is incorrect because the Examiner relies on Saulnier
for using MIMO techniques. See Final Act. 9, Ans. 4, Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

5
reasons already expressed (see footnote 2) and because claim 1 is silent as to
any “phased” array also operating as a MIMO array, as Appellant asserts.
Appeal Br. 6. Instead, claim 1 only recites that an array of “transducer
elements” (not an array of “phased” transducer elements) be subject to
MIMO operation. As such, Appellant is arguing a limitation not recited in
claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites that the transducer array be used “to steer an
ultrasonic beam toward the location of the blood vessel detected.” Appellant
contends that this “steering” limitation is missing in Papadofrangakis
because in Papadofrangakis, “[b]eam steering is not used to change the
direction of a beam to” the location of an already identified vessel. Appeal
Br. 7. Instead, as per Appellant, “[i]n Papadofrangakis, beamsteering may
be used to control the directions/angles at which the many acoustic beams
are emitted.” Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s premise that the claim term
“‘steer’ requires ‘changing.’” Ans. 5. First, as per the Examiner,
“Appellant’s [S]pecification does not explicitly define the term ‘steer’ to
mean ‘change’” and that “the term ‘steer’ in the art is not limited to mean
‘change.’” Ans. 5. Further, as per the Examiner, “the term ‘steer’ was given
an ordinary and customary meaning defined by a dictionary.” Ans. 5–6.
Here, the Examiner references “the Merriam-Webster Dictionary” stating,
“the term ‘steer’ can be defined as ‘to control the course of; direct.’” Ans. 6.
Appellant seeks to distinguish Papadofrangakis’ operation by stating,
instead, that “[i]n Papadofrangakis, beamsteering may be used to control the
directions/angles at which the many acoustic beams are emitted.” Appeal
Br. 7. However, by admitting that Papadofrangakis controls the direction of
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

6
the beam, Appellant appears to implicitly acknowledge that
Papadofrangakis’ operation comes within the scope of “steer” as that term is
defined by “the Merriam-Webster Dictionary” (i.e., “to control the course of;
direct”). Ans. 6. Hence, Appellant’s contention above that steering means
“changing the direction or angle of,” and as such this “steer” limitation is
missing in Papadofrangakis (see Appeal Br. 7), is not persuasive the
Examiner erred in finding that Papadofrangakis teaches this limitation.3
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s cited motivation (i.e.,
to “mitigate cross talk” (Final Act. 9)) “is not applicable to the ultrasonic
transducer configuration taught by Papadofrangakis.” Appeal Br. 8. This is
because this mitigation benefit is described in Saulnier as pertaining to
“parallel” operating channels. Saulnier ¶ 10. Thus, because
“Papadofrangakis does not disclose or suggest using multiple piezoelectric
transducer transmit/receive pairs which are parallel with respect to each
other” such motivation is not applicable to Papadofrangakis. Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis added).
However, Appellant does not explain why Papadofrangakis’ array
and/or operating channels are not or cannot be arranged “parallel with
respect to each other.” Appeal Br. 8. Papadofrangakis clearly discloses that
in beamsteering, the direction θ is selected. See, e.g., Papadofrangakis 3:22–
23, 4:11–12, 4:62–68. Thus, Appellant does not explain how the directions
selected for the various spaced transducers could not be arranged in a
parallel manner. Moreover, Appellant does not provide technical argument

3 We further note that Papadofrangakis expressly states “[t]he following
discussion assumes a knowledge of steered beam or phased array imagers
for making wide angle sector scans.” Papadofrangakis 3:5–7.
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

7
or objective evidence as to why such parallelism is required for the
Examiner’s reasoning to apply. In this regard, paragraph 10 of Saulnier does
not indicate that MIMO techniques are useful only in combination with
parallel channels.
In view of the above, we have been instructed that “attorney argument
[is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie
case of obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Lacking such factual evidence precluding such operation, Appellant’s
contention above regarding Papadofrangakis’ failure to disclose or suggest a
parallel arrangement is not persuasive that Papadofrangakis is incapable of
such an orientation, or that the Examiner’s stated motivation is faulty,
improper, or in error.
Appellant also contends that there is no disclosure in the cited art “that
a MIMO transducer array is effective in detecting the location of a blood
vessel.” Reply Br. 2. However, it is clear that blood vessel detection is,
indeed, disclosed in Papadofrangakis. See, e.g., Papadofrangakis 3:5–7, 34–
35 (“FIG. 1 shows a large human blood vessel 10 such as an adult aorta”);
see also Papadofrangakis Fig. 4 (and specifically aorta 18). Appellant does
not explain why an MIMO transducer array is not effective in such a manner
when Saulnier clearly states that transducers apply “ultrasound waves into a
body, and also receiv[e] a returned wave from the body.” Saulnier ¶ 7. This
same paragraph further states that transducers can “harvest even low levels
of mechanical energy and convert them into electrical energy.” Saulnier ¶ 7.
As such, Appellant does not explain how blood flow through a blood vessel
has too little mechanical energy to be detected. Further, even should the art
be silent as to “detecting the location of a blood vessel” as asserted by
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

8
Appellant (Reply Br. 2), the Supreme Court has provided instructions that a
“combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to
be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, Appellant provides no
evidence that an MIMO transducer array, used in its normal manner, would
be incapable of detecting the location of a blood vessel.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s rationale does not
explain why it would have been obvious “to operate a transducer array as
both a MIMO transducer array and a phased transducer array.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant, however, does not contest the Examiner’s finding that
Papadofrangakis teaches a switching device that can switch between modes
of operation. See Final Act. 6–7 (discussing Papadofrangakis’ ability to
switch between a “B-scan imaging and Doppler orientation mode” and a
“Doppler[only] mode of operation” (citations omitted)). Appellant does not
explain how Papadofrangakis’ switching device is incapable of switching
between the phased mode taught by Papadofrangakis and Saulnier’s MIMO
mode for the reasons stated. See Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 8
(“Papadofrangakis was combined with Saulnier to at least disclose ‘the
transducer array (was) operated as the MIMO transducer array’ since both
Papadofrangakis and Saulnier disclose an ultrasound system with at least
one piezoelectric transducer array and a control system”). In other words,
according to the Examiner, “[t]he combination would have yielded nothing
more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 9; see
also Final Act. 9. We are not persuaded of Examiner error on this point.
Appeal 2020-003910
Application 15/283,228

9
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 as unpatentable over
Papadofrangakis and Saulnier.
The rejection of claims 4 and 9
as unpatentable over Papadofrangakis, Saulnier, and Seyed-Bolorforosh
Appellant does not present separate arguments for this rejection. See
Appeal Br. 10. Instead, Appellant asserts that, “for at least the same reasons
as given above,” the rejection of claims 4 and 9 “should be overturned as
well.” Appeal Br. 10. However, in view of our discussion above, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 9.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–8 103 Papadofrangakis,
Saulnier
1, 3, 6–8
4, 9 103 Papadofrangakis,
Saulnier, Seyed-
Bolorforosh
4, 9
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6–
9

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED