Ex Parte OKADA et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 4, 201814179569 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/179,569 02/13/2014 79883 7590 09/06/2018 Solaris Intellectual Property Group, PLLC 401 Holland Lane, Suite 407 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y oshihiro OKADA 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. FS-F05801-0l 6289 EXAMINER CHOI, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2881 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2018 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): moss_sheldon@yahoo.com y-yerks@taiyo-nk.co.jp solaris@taiyo-nk.co.jp PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOSHIHIRO OKADA and TAKAO KUWABARA Appeal 2017-011092 Application 14/179,569 Technology Center 2800 Before: TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-011092 Application 14/179,569 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-14. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a radiographic imaging device and radiographic imaging method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A radiographic imaging device comprising: a radiation detection element including a plurality of same sized hexagonal shaped pixels that detect radiation and are arrayed in a honeycomb pattern; and a pixel density conversion section that performs interpolation processing such that first image data obtained from the radiation detection element is converted into second image data representing an image in which plural pixels are arrayed in a square grid pattern, wherein, in the radiographic 1magmg device, the following expression is satisfied, VSl < d2max < dlmax < V(2 x Sl) wherein dlmax denotes the length of the longest diagonal of the hexagonal shaped pixels, S 1 denotes the surface area of the hexagonal shaped pixels, and d2max denotes the length of the diagonals of the square grid of the second image data. App. Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). 1 The real party in interest is identified as Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, Japan. Appeal Brief of February 14, 2017 ("App. Br."), 3. In this opinion, we also refer to the Final Action of June 2, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Examiner's Answer of June 2, 2017 ("Ans.") and the Examiner's Subsequent Answer of July 3, 201 7 ("Second Ans."), and the Reply Brief of July 20, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2017-011092 Application 14/179,569 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3--4, 6-7, 9--10, and 12-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (JP 2003-255049 showing "10.09.2003" as date of publication) (hereinafter Koike), and alternatively over Koike and Wada (US 2009/0009637 Al published Jan. 8, 2009). Final Act. 4, 7. Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as being unpatentable over Koike and Wada, and further in view of Toraichi et al. (US 2011/0199394 Al, published Aug. 18, 2011). Final Act. 10. OPINION The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Koike teaches or suggests a radiographic imaging device satisfying the formula VS 1 < d2max < d lmax < V (2 x S 1) as recited in claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges that Koike does not explicitly describe the recited formula. Final Act. 5, 8; Ans. 3; Second Ans. 4. The Examiner, however, reasons that, based on the prior art teaching that the hexagonal shape of a pixel may be flattened, a skilled artisan would have adjusted the shape of the prior art pixels to arrive a pixels meeting the recited formula. Final Act. 5, 8. Using Figure 9 ofKoike which shows values for Land Hof each pixel, the Examiner finds that "Koike is not exactly to scale" but nonetheless estimates a value for S based on which a difference of less than 6% between the prior art dimension and that recited is calculated. Ans. 16- 1 7; Second Ans. 16-1 7. The Examiner thus reasons that such close proximity in shape and dimension would mean that only "de minimus modification" to the prior art teaching to meet the recited formula. Ans. 9; 3 Appeal2017-011092 Application 14/179,569 Second Ans. 1 O; see also Final Act. 8 (finding the difference in dimension to be "slight"). Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any, of nonobviousness. In this case, while the Examiner explains at length that "routine design choice and/or routine optimization" or certain "manufacturing variation" (Ans. 3) would have led the skilled artisan to arrive at the recited formula, the record does not show that these findings are within the scope or content of the prior art. The Examiner does not find that Koike contemplates any particular correlation among "the length of the longest diagonal of the hexagonal shaped pixels" and the other recited parameters. Koike describes various pixel shapes which the Examiner acknowledges failing to meet the recited formula. The Examiner does not cite to Koike or any other reference for the purported acceptable variation or tolerance in the particular field of radiographic imaging devices. "To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention ... , when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher." W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1983). DECISION 4 Appeal2017-011092 Application 14/179,569 The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-14 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation