Bin Zhang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2020

14909747 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2020)

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.
14/909,747 02/03/2016 Bin ZHANG 2013P00975WOUS 5796
24737 7590 03/04/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BIN ZHANG and CHI-HUA TUNG
____________________

Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed February 3, 2016 as
amended (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from dated May 3,
2017 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed September 19, 2017 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated December 1, 2017 (“Ans.”) and the
Reply Brief filed January 26, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to diagnostic imaging systems
and methods, and in particular, positron emission tomography (“PET”).
Spec. 1. “In a PET scan, a patient receives a dose of a radiopharmaceutical”
which is carried through the body and concentrates in target organs or
regions. Id. Then the emitted radiation from the radiopharmaceutical is
detected and reconstructed into an image. Id. The PET detectors are made
of scintillator crystals which is the largest portion of the hardware costs
however, the field of view (“FOV”) of the system is related to the number of
crystals used in the detector. Id. Therefore, the present application purports
to “address these problems by reducing the number of crystal[s] without
reducing the FOV or, alternatively, enlarging the FOV without adding
crystals, all while maintaining uniform sampling without reducing
resolution.” Id. Claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A PET scanner comprising:
an annular support structure which surrounds an
examination region, the examination region extending axially
parallel to an axis of the annular support structure;
a plurality of radiation detector units mounted on the
annular support structure, each radiation detector unit
comprising a plurality of scintillator crystals, and
wherein the scintillator crystals of the plurality of radiation
detector units are arranged in annular ranks that surround the
examination region; and wherein at least some of the annular
ranks are spaced by annular gaps within each of the plurality of
radiation detector units.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
3
12. A PET device comprising:
a first annular support structure surrounding an
examination region, and including a plurality of ranks of detector
units;
each detector unit including a plurality of scintillator
crystals, and wherein the ranks of detector units are separated by
gaps, and the gaps are smaller adjacent a center of first annular
support structure and progressively larger toward axially
opposite ends of the first annular support structure; and
a patient support configured to move a patient in the PET
device during a scan.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains3 the following rejections:
A. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamaya.4 Final Act. 4.

B. Claims 3–5, 7, 8, 10–13, and 17–21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamaya in view of
Yamaya ’956.5 Id. at 7.

C. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yamaya in view of Wieczorek.6 Id. at
16.

3 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 12 and 13 (Final Act. 2)
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Ans. 2.
4 Yamaya et al., US 2011/0031407 A1, published February 10, 2011
(“Yamaya”).
5 Yamaya et al., US 2010/0128956 A1, published May 27, 2010 (“Yamaya
’956”).
6 Herfried Wieczorek, US 2010/0294940 A1, published November 25, 2010
(“Wieczorek”).
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
4
Appellant seeks our review of Rejections A–C. See generally Appeal
Br. Appellant argues the rejections together, presenting separate arguments
for claims 1 (and claim 14) and 12.7 Id. Therefore, consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to
claims 1 and 12, and each of the other claims stand or fall together with the
claim from which it depends.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error except where otherwise
explained below. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and
13—for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer—
and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2–11, and 14–21. We add
the following.
A. Rejections based on Yamaya
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yamaya teaches: (1) an
annular support structure, corresponding to gantry 100; (2) a plurality of
radiation detector units, or detector rings 11, 12; and (3) where each unit is

7 Appellant’s arguments for claims 2–11 and 14–21 mirror the argument
advanced for claim 1, i.e., that Yamaya does not suggest a radiation detector
unit with annular gaps within the radiation detector unit. See generally
Appeal Br. 8–10, 12–13.
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
5
comprised of a plurality of scintillator crystals. Final Act. 4–5. According
to the Examiner, the scintillator crystals are arranged in and form annular
ranks that “are spaced by annular gaps within each of the plurality of
radiation units.” Id. at 5 (referring to Yamaya, Figs. 13–14 and movable
detector rings 21, 24 and 32, 35 which are housed within gantry 100); see
also Ans. 5 (same).
Appellant argues that Yamaya “does not suggest a radiation detector
unit with annular gaps within the radiation detector unit.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant stresses that claim 1 is directed to “gaps within each of the
detector rings” and not between detector rings 11, 12, i.e., “arranged apart
laterally,” as Yamaya suggests. Id. Therefore, according to Appellant,
because an element is entirely missing from Yamaya, Yamaya cannot
anticipate claim 1. Id. at 8.
On this record, Appellant has the better position. The Specification
describes three different spacing embodiments. “The spacing may be
accomplished by [1] spacing the individual crystals 52, [2] by spacing the
detector units 14, or [3] by spacing the rings 12 to which the detector units
14 are affixed, or any combination thereof.” Spec. 7. Different claims
similarly correspond to each of the three spacing embodiments described in
the Specification—claims 1–11 and 14–21 relate to gaps between the
crystals, i.e., within the detector units, claim 11 depends from claim 1 and
further relates to spacing between the detector units on the ring, and claims
12 and 13 relate to spacing between the annular rings. Appeal Br. 18–21
(Claims App.). The first embodiment, relevant for claim 1, is depicted in
Figures 2 and 3 below, which illustrate detector unit 14 formed as a module
40 (Figure 2) or mounted on a tile 62 (Figure 3).
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
6

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate “an individual PET detector module with the
scintillation crystals in a spaced configuration” and “a tile with its attached
photodetector and scintillation crystals in a spaced configuration,”
respectively. Spec. 2. Each of Figures 2 and 3 depict an array of
scintillation crystals 58, mounted on either assembly 50 or tile mount 62,
where the crystal array includes spaces 56 which are alternately placed
between crystals. Id. at 5. The modules or tiles are then combined with
other identical modules and tiles and placed on annular support ring 12. Id.
The Examiner’s rejection relies on Yamaya’s Figures 13 and 14, and
states “the annular ranks are spaced by annular gaps within each of the
plurality of radiation detector units.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner identifies
gantry 100 as the annular support structure and detector rings 11, 12 (as well
as 21, 24 and 32, 35) as the plurality of radiation detector units. Id. Figure
14 is reproduced below for discussion purposes.
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
7

Yamaya’s Figure 14 “covers drawings showing Embodiment 2 of the
present invention.” Yamaya ¶ 41. According to Yamaya, each gantry 100
includes detector rings 31, 32, 33 or 34, 35, 36 with detector rings 32, 35
being movable within gantry 100. Id. at ¶ 56. Each detector ring is
comprised of detecting element rings that have scintillators on the
circumference. Id. at ¶ 43. Consistent with the teachings of Yamaya, the
Examiner explains that the movable detector rings 21, 24 and 32, 35 can
move inside the gantry and adjust the size of the annular gaps. Final Act. 5.
But, Yamaya and the Examiner’s explanation describe spacing between each
of the individual detector units and not within the detector unit as claimed.
Therefore, Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and we do not sustain that rejection.
Furthermore, Appellant has identified error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–11 and 14–21—each requiring “annular gaps within
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
8
each of the plurality of radiation detector units,” by independent recitation or
through dependency—for the same reason discussed above.8
B. Rejection based on Yamaya in combination with Yamaya ’956
We focus our discussion of Rejection B on independent claim 12.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 over the combination of Yamaya and
Yamaya ’956. Final Act. 11. In relevant part, claim 12 differs from claim 1
in that claim 12 requires that “the ranks of detector units are separated by
gaps” and that “the gaps are smaller adjacent a center of first annular support
structure and progressively larger toward axially opposite ends.” Appeal Br.
19–20 (emphasis added).
In addition to the findings detailed above for claim 1, the Examiner
finds that Yamaya describes a patient support, or bed 8, to move the patient
in the PET device during a scan. Final Act. 11 (citing Yamaya ¶¶ 2, 23, 24).
The Examiner acknowledges that Yamaya “lacks an explicit description that
the gaps are smaller adjacent a center of the first annular support structure
and progressively larger toward axially opposite ends of the first annular
support structure,” but additionally finds that Yamaya ’956 describes using a
number of detector rings and adjusting the distances between the rings. Id.
at 12 (citing Yamaya ’956 ¶¶ 94, 101 and Fig. 24). The Examiner reasons
that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the gaps
between the annular support structures such that the gaps become

8 Neither of the secondary references are relied on by the Examiner to cure
the above-identified defect in the rejection or to provide support for the
presence of “annular gaps within each of the plurality of radiation detector
units.” See, e.g., Final Act. 7 (introducing Yamaya ’956 to describe
clearance or gaps between rings), 16 (relying on Wieczorek to describe
shields).
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
9
progressively larger moving away from the center “in order to obtain D
values that are greater than an examination target region to be imaged.” Id.
Appellant contends that Yamaya ’956 does not disclose a “spacing
between detector units on a first annular support structure.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant asserts that “even if any of Yamaya ’956’s detector rings 12a,
12b, and 12c are taken to correspond to the claimed first annular support
structure, there is no disclosure in these passages of the spacing of detector
units on any of the detector rings 12a, 12b, 12c.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
argument is based on its position that claim 12 requires spacing between
each detector unit on the annular support structure as opposed to between the
detector units on separate annular support structures. However, Appellant
describes the gaps of claim 12 with relation to Figure 6. Appeal Br. 5.
Specifically, in its Appeal Brief, Appellant states that “the ranks of detector
units are separated by gaps, and the gaps are smaller adjacent a center of first
annular support structure (12, 134) and progressively larger toward axially
opposite ends of the first annular support structure (12, 134); (figure 6; page
7, lines 11–27).” Id. Figure 6 is reproduced below for reference.
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
10

Figure 6 “illustrates a spread arrangement of rings of detector units having
increased sensitivity in the center of the imaging region.” Spec. 2 (emphasis
added). The Specification expands on this description and states
FIGURE 6 shows an arrangement having the detector units 14
spaced by non-constant width annular spaces, the spacing
varying from the center at 102 where there is minimal spacing to
larger spaces 104, 106 adjacent the ends of the FOY 108. This
scheme is used when high 15 resolution is wanted in a small
examination area, and reduced resolution in the surrounding
areas is acceptable.
Id. at 7. Therefore, claim 12, as described by Appellant in both its Appeal
Brief and its Specification, is directed to variable spacing between ranks of
the plurality of detector units and not between each individual detector unit
14 as alleged. Thus, the Examiner’s reliance on Yamaya ’956 to show
variable spacing between each gantry 100 (of Yamaya) and the plurality of
detector units 21, 24, 32, 35 within the movable gantries (of Yamaya ’956)
to establish variable spacing between the ranks of detector units has not been
Appeal 2018-002984
Application 14/909,747
11
shown to be in error. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 12. Appellant does not provide separate argument in support of claim
13. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed for claim 12, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13 is
affirmed and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2–11, and 14–21 is
reversed.
DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 14–16 102(a)(1) Yamaya 1, 2, 6, 14–16
3–5, 7, 8, 10–
13, 17–21 103
Yamaya, Yamaya
’956 12, 13
3–5, 7, 8, 10,
11, 17–21
9 103 Yamaya, Yamaya ’956, Wieczorek 9
Overall
Outcome
12, 13 1–11, 14–21

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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART