Ex Parte OKADA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2018

14179569 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

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