GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 6, 2020

2019003417 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 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.
15/452,696 03/07/2017 Eric P. Loewen 5.0051.1 (24AR314723) 1378
15624 7590 10/06/2020
Ryan Alley IP
(GE Docket)
P.O. Box 87
Alexandria, VA 22313
EXAMINER
SINGH, HIRDEPAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/06/2020 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):
office@alleylegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC P. LOEWEN, SCOTT L. PFEFFER, MARIA E. PFEFFER,
and SETH RYAN PAUL STREGE
___________

Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1–19 and 21, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
October 29, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 18, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 27, 2018), Advisory
Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed May 24, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed January 18, 2019); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed
March 7, 2017). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s
contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

2

Claim 20 is canceled. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims recite lighting and radiation detection units related to
“combined radiation detectors and lights as well[] as systems and methods of
using the same.” Spec. ¶ 17. “The lighting element is adjustable in response
to the detector detecting radiation, for example, by strobing, changing color,
intensifying, etc., to make nearby radiation known to personnel.” Id. ¶ 4. In
particular, the lighting element may be adjusted when detected ionizing
radiation exceeds a threshold of a regulatory or safe ionizing radiation level.
See id. ¶ 33.
As noted above, claims 1–19 and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and
18 are independent. Appeal Br. 18 (claim 1), 20–21 (claim 10),
23 (claim 18) (Claims App.). Claims 2–9 and 21 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1; claims 10–17 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 10; and claim 19 depends directly from claim 18. Id. at 18–24
Claims 1 and 21 are reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized; claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A combined lighting and radiation detection unit
comprising:
a ballast configured to removably join to and draw power
from an electrical outlet;
a light secured with and configured to draw power from
the ballast;
an ionizing radiation detector secured with and configured
to draw power from the ballast; and
a controller configured to change output of the light from
a constant visible light to a light visibly varying in time in
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

3

response to ionizing radiation detected by the ionizing radiation
detector exceeding a threshold of a regulatory or safe ionizing
radiation level.
Id. at 18 (emphasis added).
21. The unit of claim 1, wherein the ionizing radiation
detector includes an alpha/beta radiation detector on an outward-
most side of the light and a gamma radiation detector on an
inward side of the light.
Id. at 24 (emphases added). Claims 10 and 18 recite corresponding
limitations to those recited in claim 1.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference No. Publ’d/Issued Filed
Wasserman US 4,924,098 May 8, 1990 Nov. 30, 1987
Lys US 2007/0188427 A1 Aug. 16, 2007 Apr. 26, 2007
Longman US 2009/0012745 A1 Jan. 8, 2009 July 7, 2008
Pederson US 8,571,411 B2 Oct. 29, 2013 Mar. 22, 2012
Takeuchi US 2015/0008328 A1 Jan. 8, 2015 June 17, 2014
Cagdaser US 2016/0105750 A1 Apr. 14, 2016 Dec. 18, 2015
Ashoff US 2017/0238388 A1 Aug. 17, 2017 July 18, 2012
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking
adequate written description in the Specification. Final Act. 2–3. Further,
the Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff and Wasserman (id. at 4–8);
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Longman (id. at 8–9); claim 5 under

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

4

35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff,
Wasserman, and Lys (id. at 10–11); claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Pederson
(id. at 11–12); claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, Pederson, and Cagdaser (id. at 13);
claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Cagdaser (id. at 13–15);
claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Ashoff, Wasserman, Cagdaser, and Longman (id. at 15–17); and claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff,
Wasserman, and Takeuchi (id. at 17–18).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 1 and 21; so do we. See, e.g., Final Act. 4–7
(discussing rejection of claims 1 and 18 together), 7–8 (discussing rejection
of claim 10 based on rationale stated with respect to the rejection of
claim 1); Appeal Br. 2 (“Claims 1, 10, and 18 are the independent claim[s]
on appeal, and dependent claim 21 is the only dependent claim argued
separately on appeal.”). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as our own and add any
additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the findings and
contentions below.
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

5

ANALYSIS
A. Lack of Adequate Written Description for Claim 21
As noted above, claim 21 recites, “[t]he unit of claim 1, wherein the
ionizing radiation detector includes an alpha/beta radiation detector on an
outward-most side of the light and a gamma radiation detector on an inward
side of the light.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphases added). The
Examiner finds,
this subject matter that alpha/beta radiation detector on an
outward-most side of the light and a gamma radiation detector on
an inward side of the light is not described in the specification
. . . in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the
relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed
had possession of the claimed invention.
Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds,
[Figures 2 and 3] do not show any details as pointed in last office
action, and paragraph 22 in question describes subject matter that
is different than claimed in claim 21; para 22 recites ‘alpha/beta
radiation detector 126 could be used on a front or outward-most
position of example embodiment R&L unit 120 while a gamma
radiation detector 126 could separately be used behind or at a
back of lighting element 125’ the alpha/beta [detector] could be
on outward most position of R&L unit 120; and the gamma
detector could be behind or at back of lighting element 125.
As clearly seen the detectors are in place with reference to
different units as R&L unit 120, and lighting element 125.
[S]econdly there is no mention of gamma detector on an inward
side of the light.
Adv. Act. 2 (emphases added); see Ans. 19 (“The penultimate sentence of
paragraph [0022] teaches - as a single idea - an alpha/beta detector at a
‘front’ or ‘outermost position’ of R&L unit 120 containing light 125 and a
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

6

gamma detector ‘behind’ or at a ‘back of’ the lighting element 125 in the
unit 120.”).
Appellant disagrees and contends, “the recited different radiation
detectors opposed on inward and outward sides of the light is supported by
the disclosure of paragraph [0022] of the specification.” Appeal Br. 8. The
Specification discloses:
Desired or relevant radiation types and levels, such as
alpha, beta, and/or gamma radiation, may be detected using an
appropriate detector 126. While a single detector 126 is shown
in FIG. 2 in front of lighting element 125, it is understood that
multiple detectors 126 may be used, potentially behind or around
lighting element 125. For example, an alpha/beta radiation
detector 126 could be used on a front or outward-most position
of example embodiment R&L unit 120 while a gamma radiation
detector 126 could separately be used behind or at a back of
lighting element 125, to better discriminate between the types of
radiation detected. Similarly, multiple, redundant radiation
detectors 126 could be used for verification or backup.
Spec. ¶ 22 (emphases added). Appellant concludes, “among the few
meanings one could reasonabl[y] ascribe to paragraph [0022], at least one of
them (and the easiest of them) is an R&L unit including a light, alpha/beta
detector, and gamma detector, with the light intervening between the
detectors, as required by claim 21.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
The Examiner finds, “[t]he claimed ‘alpha/beta radiation detector on
an outward-most side of the light and a gamma radiation detector on an
inward side of the light’ is not consistent with what is taught by the present
application disclosure.” Ans. 20–21 (emphases added). As the Examiner
finds, the portion of the Specification, upon which Appellant relies to
provide written description supporting claim 21, does not explicitly disclose
the limitations recited in claim 21. Id. at 20. As the Examiner correctly
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

7

notes, the Specification describes the location of the alpha/beta radiation
detector with respect to the combined R&L unit 120, not with respect to the
specific lighting element 125; the location of the gamma radiation detector is
described as “behind or at a back of lighting element 125,” not “on an
inward side of the light.” See Adv. Act. 2. Thus, the Examiner concludes,
“[the] Specification does provide multiple detectors that may be used on
front, behind or around the light; but does not provide support for [a]
detector on an inward side of light.” Id. at 21. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellant also contends:
The opposite-sides-of-the-light positioning is consistent with the
final clause of the sentence, teaching this positioning allows
discrimination between different types of radiation. Gamma
radiation is much more penetrating than alpha and beta radiation,
which would be stopped by an intervening lighting element. So
a detector must go frontmost of the light to pick up alpha and
beta radiation, while another detector inward from the light in
the unit can discriminatorily detect only gamma radiation.
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the Examiner finds
Appellant fails to show where the Specification discloses that the lighting
element shields or is capable of shielding the gamma radiation detector from
alpha and beta radiation. See Ans. 22; cf. Takeuchi ¶ 43 (describing
casing 190 shielding tubes 710c and 710d from alpha and beta radiation).
Again, we agree with the Examiner.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 21 for lack
of adequate written description. Consequently, we sustain this rejection.
B. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 17, and 18 Over Ashoff and
Wasserman
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

8

and Wasserman. Final Act. 4–7. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Ashoff teaches or suggests the majority of the limitations of independent
claim 1. Id. at 4–6. Although Ashoff discloses an embodiment combining a
light and a motion sensor (id. at 5 (citing Ashoff, Fig. 4 (fluorescent lamp
112 and motion sensor 408))), the Examiner finds Ashoff discloses other
sensors, such as an ionizing radiation and subatomic particles detector, could
be included alternatively in Ashoff’s device (id. at 6 (citing Ashoff ¶ 91)).
Although Ashoff discloses that the lights may be off and turned on when
motion is sensed (Ashoff ¶ 47), Ashoff also teaches that lights may be
“activated, deactivated, dimmed, or brightened” in response to a sensor
signal (id. ¶ 69; see id. ¶70).
The Examiner finds that Ashoff does not “specifically teach[]
chang[ing] output of the light from a constant visible light to a light visibly
varying in time in response to ionizing radiation detected by the ionizing
radiation detector exceeding a threshold of a regulatory or safe ionizing
radiation level.” Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds Wasserman
teaches this limitation (id. at 6–7) and that a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Ashoff and
Wasserman to achieve the unit, as recited in claim 1 (id. at 7 (“Simple
Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable
Results”)).
In particular, Wasserman explains,
the nuclear radiation level detector of the present invention
comprises an ionization chamber. Included in the ionization
chamber are spaced electrodes. The space between the
electrodes communicates with the atmosphere so as to expose the
electrodes to the atmosphere. A voltage source applies a
potential across the electrodes. When the atmosphere is not
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

9

contaminated with nuclear radiation above a reference level, the
current flow between the electrodes is nil or substantially so. In
the event the atmosphere is contaminated with nuclear radiation
above a reference level, a measurable current flows between the
electrodes.
Wasserman, 1:55–66 (emphasis added). Wasserman explains, “[w]hen the
nuclear radiation level in the ionization chamber 25 exceeds the reference
level of nuclear radiation, the light emitting diode 87 (FIG. 6) pulses on and
off, in the exemplary embodiment, at a rate of once per second.” Id. at 6:33–
37 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner finds Wasserman teaches or
suggests that light may be changed from a constant light to a light visibly
varying in time in response to the detection of an unsafe radiation level.
Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs for three reasons. Specifically,
“Applicant respectfully submits . . . that Ashoff and Wasserman (1) cannot
combine to teach the recited switch from constant to variable light in
response to a detection and (2) even together do not teach the recited
regulatory or safe thresholds.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Third, Appellant
contends the Examiner fails to show an adequate reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art to have combined the teachings of Ashoff
and Wasserman to achieve the claimed unit. Id. at 13. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s reasons.
First, Appellant contends that, unlike the claimed units, Ashoff
teaches lights that change from one constant light, a fluorescent lamp on, to
a second constant, a light emitting diode (“LED”) on, in response to non-
detection of movement. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Ashoff ¶ 34 (“When the
detector has ceased to detect motion, after a period of time, the fluorescent
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

10

lighting source 112 can be deactivated and the LED lighting source 102 can
be [reactivated].”)). Appellant contends:
Wasserman teaches a light that changes from one variable state
(flashing slower) to another variable state (flashing faster) in
response to radiation detection. See Wasserman, Col. 5, 11. 49-
55 (“When there is no radiation, this diode [87] flashes once
every 40 seconds”); Col 6, 11. 26-37 (“When the nuclear
radiation level . . . exceeds the threshold . . . diode 87 pulses
. . . once per second”).
Id.; see Reply Br. 5–6. Thus, Appellant contends neither reference alone nor
the combined teachings of the references teach(es) or suggest(s) changing a
constant visible light to a varying visible light in response to a signal from a
radiation detector. Appeal Br. 12. We disagree.
Initially, Appellant focuses on particular embodiments of Ashoff and
Wasserman to limit the teachings of these references. As noted above,
Ashoff discloses lights may be “activated, deactivated, dimmed, or
brightened.” Ashoff ¶ 69; see id. ¶ 48 (“The sensor 408 can detect[] a
motion or an occupant. The sensor 408 can send a signal to the
microprocessor 410, whereby the relay 404 can switch to position A.
Switching the relay to position A can power the components of the
fluorescent lighting segment 104, thereby activating (that is, turning on) the
fluorescent lamp 112.”). Thus, we do not understand Ashoff to be limited to
the narrow embodiment identified by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 12 (quoting
Ashoff ¶ 34). Therefore, we find Ashoff teaches or suggests that a light may
emit a constant visible light and then be dimmed or brightened. Further, we
understand dimming and brightening to encompass varying the intensity of
visible light in time. See Ans. 25–26 (“Similarly claim language not having
any details about ‘light visibly varying in time’: whether ‘light visibly
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

11

varying in time’ means the light is changing/varying its brightness to/from
low/high or the light is turning on/off or blinking/flashing at any specified
varying/changing rate . . .”).
Although Wasserman discloses an embodiment in which the light
flashes, e.g., varies, faster when radiation contamination is detected, we do
not understand Wasserman to be limited to this embodiment. See Ans. 26
(citing Wasserman, 5:49–53). Wasserman also teaches that the light may
pulse when a nuclear radiation threshold level is exceeded. See id. (citing
Wasserman, 6:32–37, 7:15–18). Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on the
combination of Ashoff and Wasserman to teach this change from constant to
varying visible light; here we are persuaded that Ashoff teaches or suggests
changing from constant visible light to a varying visible light, and
Wasserman teaches or suggests that the varying visible light may be flashing
or pulsing. See Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 26–27; see Spec. ¶ 4 (“The lighting
element is adjustable in response to the detector detecting radiation, for
example, by strobing, changing color, intensifying, etc., to make nearby
radiation known to personnel.”).
Second, Appellant contends
[t]he independent claims further require a light variability
change upon detecting radiation “exceeding a threshold of a
regulatory or safe ionizing radiation level.” By the plain
language of this phrase, the change cannot occur at any threshold,
such as background radiation level or a zero-radiation level, but
rather one that is a regulatory level or a safe level. . . . This
reference level could be entirely safe and not forbidden by any
regulation; Wasserman does not specify anything further.
Appeal Br. 14; see Reply Br. 6–7. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, “the
Wasserman system providing alarm or varying light in response to radiation
level exceeding a threshold or reference, which is exceeding atmosphere
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

12

contamination with nuclear radiation above reference level.” Ans. 27; see
Wasserman, 1:55–66 (quoted above). We understand that an atmosphere
“contaminated” with nuclear radiation would encompass an atmosphere
exceeding a safe ionizing radiation level. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968) (“in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper
to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom”); see also, e.g., Longman ¶ 22, claim 10 (“alert the user through
the interface in response to the intensity and confidence levels meeting a
certain combination of intensity and confidence levels that indicate to the
user a potentially dangerous concentration of radioactive material”).4 Thus,
we are persuaded Wasserman teaches or suggests changing a constant to a
varying visible light “in response to ionizing radiation detected by the
ionizing radiation detector exceeding a threshold of a . . . safe ionizing
radiation level.”
Third, Appellant contends,
[w]here the Examiner cites Wasserman’s teaching of
“economical and reliable” applications in its “column 1” (Final
OA, p. 7), this does not support the recited change from constant
to variable lighting at a radiation trigger, nor does it account for
what the reference “fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the
art.”

4 The cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he
absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise
to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and
a need for testimony is not shown’”; quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

13

Appeal Br. 13. Nevertheless, the Specification makes clear that reliable
detection of ionizing radiation exceeding regulatory or safe levels and
reliable warning of persons at risk of exposure to such ionizing radiation are
problems addressed by the claimed units. See Spec. ¶ 16. As the U.S.
Supreme Court has instructed, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007). Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner has shown an adequate reason
for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of
Ashoff and Wasserman to achieve the units, as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, as noted above, the Examiner further states that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute Wasserman’s
pulsing light for Ashoff’s dimming or brightening light because such a
substitution is merely of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results. Final Act. 7; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The Court
recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior
art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known
in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”).
Here, the Examiner finds that Wasserman’s pulsing light is a “reliable”
alternative to Ashoff’s dimming or brightening. Final Act. 7; Ans. 27.
Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner has shown an adequate reason for one
of ordinary skill in the relevant art to combine the teachings of Ashoff and
Wasserman to achieve the units, as recited in claim 1.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that claim 1, as
well as claims 10 and 18, is obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

14

and Wasserman. Further, Appellant does not challenge the rejection of the
dependent claims 2, 7, and 17 separately, and, on this record, we also are not
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that claims 2, 7, and 17 are obvious
over the combined teachings of Ashoff and Wasserman. See Appeal Br. 2.
Consequently, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 17,
and 18.
C. Obviousness of Claims 3–6, 8, 9, 11–16, and 19 Over Ashoff and
Wasserman in Combination with Longman, Lys, Pederson, and/or
Cagdaser
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 3–6, 8, 9, 11–16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff
and Wasserman in combination with one or more of Longman, Lys,
Pederson, and Cagdaser. Final Act. 8–17. Appellant does not argue these
dependent claims separately, and, instead, relies solely on its challenges to
the rejection of their base claims, claims 1, 10, and 18, to show Examiner
error in these rejections. See Appeal Br. 2. On this record and for the
reasons give above, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that
independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are obvious over the combined teachings
of Ashoff and Wasserman. Consequently, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner errs in rejecting claims 3–6, 8, 9, 11–16, and 19, and we sustain
the obviousness rejections thereof.
D. Obviousness of Claim 21 Over Ashoff, Wasserman, and Takeuchi
As noted above, the Examiner also rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and
Takeuchi. Final Act. 17–18. As noted above, claim 21 recites, in the unit of
claim 1, “the ionizing radiation detector includes an alpha/beta radiation
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

15

detector on an outward-most side of the light and a gamma radiation detector
on an inward side of the light.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The
Examiner acknowledges that Ashoff and Wasserman do not teach or suggest
this limitation, but finds Takeuchi teaches or suggests this limitation, and a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine
the teachings of Ashoff and Wasserman with those of Takeuchi to achieve
the units, as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 17–18 (citing Takeuchi ¶ 49).
In particular, Takeuchi discloses,
the radiation measurement apparatus further includes a fourth
Geiger-Muller counter tube and a computing unit. In the fourth
Geiger-Muller counter tube, one of an inside of an enclosing tube
and an outside of the enclosing tube is covered with a metal film.
The metal film shields beta ray. The first Geiger-Muller counter
tube and the second Geiger-Muller counter tube are each
configured to detect beta ray and gamma ray to be emitted from
the sample.
Takeuchi ¶ 49 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds that Takeuchi
teaches an outward-most beta radiation detector and an inward-side gamma
radiation detector. Final Act. 18–19.
Appellant disagrees and contends Takeuchi only teaches various
radiation detectors positioned with regard to each other. Appeal Br. 16
(citing Takeuchi, Figs. 1–5B, ¶ 6). Although Takeuchi discloses displaying
unit 150, which the Examiner appears to equate to the recited light, Takeuchi
does not disclose the positioning of the detectors with respect to the
displaying unit. Id. Thus, Appellant contends, “Takeuchi, while teaching
multiple radiation detectors of differing type, fails to teach or suggest
anything about the positioning of these detectors with regard to a lighting
element.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds that Takeuchi’s Figure 6
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

16

shows the first detector 710a is located outward side of the
enclosure main body 770 and with reference to other elements
including processor and display, whereas the detector 710c that
is covered with casing 190 for gamma radiation detection is
located on inward of body and with reference to other elements
including processor and display.
Ans. 28–29 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds that Takeuchi
teaches or suggests the additional limitations of claim 21. We disagree.
Takeuchi’s Figure 6 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

17

Figure 6, reproduced above, is a schematic configuration diagram of a
radiation measurement apparatus 700. Takeuchi ¶ 16. Takeuchi discloses
that detectors 710a and 710c are oriented along the X-axis at the +X and -X
positions, respectively; and detectors 710b and 710d are oriented along the
Y-axis at the -Y and +Y positions, respectively.5 Id. ¶ 41. Further,
Takeuchi discloses that detectors 710a and 710b may be alpha/beta radiation
detectors, and detectors 710b and 710d, enclosed in casings 190, may be
gamma radiation detectors. Id. ¶ 43. Nevertheless, even if the schematic
diagram depicted in Takeuchi’s Figure 6 shows that a gamma radiation
detector (i.e., detector 710c) may be located inward within main body 770
from an alpha/beta radiation detector (i.e., detector 710a), the Examiner fails
to show how this figure and/or the related descriptive paragraphs teach(es)
or suggest(s) the positional relationship of each detector 710a and 710c to a
light, as recited in claim 21. See Reply Br. 8.
For the reasons given above, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner errs in finding that Ashoff, Wasserman, and Takeuchi teach or
suggest the units, as recited in claim 21. Thus, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting:
a. claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking adequate written
description;

5 We note that the X/Y/Z axis depicted at the lower left corner of Takeuchi’s
Figure 6 is not consistent with the description in Takeuchi’s Paragraph 41.
Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

18

b. claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Ashoff and Wasserman;
c. claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Longman;
d. claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Lys;
e. claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Pederson;
f. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, Pederson, and Cagdaser;
g. claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and Cagdaser; and
h. claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, Cagdaser, and Longman.
2. The Examiner errs in rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
obvious over the combined teachings of Ashoff, Wasserman, and
Takeuchi.
3. Thus, on this record, claims 1–19 and 21 are not patentable.
CONCLUSION
Because we affirm at least one of the Examiner’s rejections for each
of claims 1–19 and 21, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1–19 and 21.

Appeal 2019-003417
Application 15/452,696

19

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21 112(a) Written Description 21
1, 2, 7, 10,
17, 18
103 Ashoff, Wasserman 1, 2, 7, 10,
17, 18

3, 4 103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Longman
3, 4
5 103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Lys
5
6, 8 103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Pederson
6, 8
9 103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Pederson, Cagdaser
9
11, 12, 16,
19
103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Cagdaser
11, 12, 16,
19

13–15 103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Cagdaser, Longman
13–15
21 103 Ashoff, Wasserman,
Takeuchi
21
Overall
Outcome
1–19, 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED