Ex Parte FRACH et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201613189886 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/189,886 07/25/2011 Thomas PRACH 24737 7590 02/29/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 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. 2005P01148 US05 1117 EXAMINER LEE, SHUNK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): debbie.henn@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS PRACH and KLAUS FIEDLER Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim radiation detection methods. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: switching digital circuitry from a first digital value to a second digital value responsive to detection of a photon by a photodiode biased in a breakdown region, the switching defining a switching event; generating a trigger signal indicative of a start of an integration time period responsive to a selected number of one Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 or more said switching events associated with a plurality of said photodiodes; and with the trigger signal, triggering a counter to start accumulating a count of switching events associated with the plurality of said photodiodes over the integration time period. Bennett Young Suddarth Crosetto Steams Augusto The References USH12 US 6,297 ,506 B 1 US 2003/0012731 Al US 2004/0195512 Al US 2006/0163485 Al WO 2004/054235 Al Jan. 7, 1986 Oct. 2, 2001 Jan. 16,2003 Oct. 7, 2004 July 27, 2006 June 24, 2004 S. Moehrs et al., A Small-Animal PET Design Using SiPMs and Anger Logic with Intrinsic DOI, 0-7803-8700-7 /04 IEEE EXPLORE 3475-79 (2004) (hereinafter Moehrs ). The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follov,rs: claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett, claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Steams, claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett, Steams and Crosetto, claims 6, 9, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Suddarth, claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Young, claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Moehrs, claims 12, 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view ofMoehrs, Suddarth and Bennett, claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view ofMoehrs, Suddarth, Bennet and Young, claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 2 Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 over Augusto in view of Suddarth and Bennett and claim 1 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view ofMoehrs, Suddarth, Bennett and Steams. 1 OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 We need address only the independent claims (1, 12, and 16). Claim 1 requires generating a trigger signal indicative of a start of an integration time period responsive to a select number of one or more switching events associated with a plurality of photodiodes and, with the trigger signal, triggering a counter to start accumulating a count of switching events associated with the plurality of photodiodes over the integration time period. Claim 12 requires, in response to a selected number of one or more switching events, generating a trigger signal which indicates a start of an integration period and, in response to the trigger signal, counting the switching events caused by each of a plurality of photodiodes during the integration period. Claim 16 requires generating a trigger signal indicative of a start of an integration time period responsive to a current through a bias network which biases a plurality of photodiodes exceeding a selected threshold, and accumulating a count of switching events associated with the plurality of photodiodes over the integration time period. To meet those claim requirements the Examiner relies upon Augusto in view of Bennett (claim 1 ), or Augusto in view of Bennett and Suddarth (claims 12 and 16) (Final Act. 3--4, 10-12). 1 Claim 19 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 3 Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 Augusto discloses "in-pixel architectures for CMOS [complementary metal oxide semiconductor] image sensors which are suitable for avalanche photo-diodes [APDs] operating either in linear or in non-linear [e.g., Geiger] mode" (abstract; p. 3, 11. 4--8). Augusto discloses: The CMOS devices directly controlling, and handling the output of the photo-diodes can be arranged into circuits that handle the photo-current in two fundamentally different ways, namely: 1) Conversion of the detected photo-current amplitude to digital values; 2) Conversion of the detected photo-current frequency to digital values; Both cases can be implemented for an asynchronous tracking of the input signal, in which case, both require "in- pixel" counters . . . . [T]ransforming frequency into digital values does not require a comparator, and it is accomplished by feeding the sequence of pulses the APD generates (already in digital form) to a digital counter. [p. 5, 11. 10-20] The Geiger mode, because of its extremely large gain factor, requires quenching of the current in order to prevent permanent damage to the photo-diode from overheating .... Active quenching consists in resetting the photo-diode immediately after the current has risen to high levels, subsequent to the absorption of one or more photons by the photo-diode. [p. 6, 11. 13-17] The maximum frequency of detection is dependent on the speed of the physical phenomena inside the photo-diode as well as the speed of switching of the circuitry associated with the photo-diode. The maximum frequency of detection provides the upper limit to the number of photons that can be counted by the photo-diode per unit of time, and thus the maximum dynamic range possible to detect with a given APD & associated circuitry. [p. 6, 11. 22-26] 4 Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 Figure 2 shows the "in-pixel" circuitry that operates in "frequency of detection" mode, and the corresponding circuitry for the resetting of the photo-diode (after a first detection), ending with the photo-diode in "stand-by", ready for the next detection. [p. 6, 11. 28-30] Figure 4 shows the circuit of Figure 2, plus the in-pixel counters .... [p. 7, 1. 4] Information about time of arrival of photons does not require any additional circuitry to the circuitry that is shown in Figures 2 and 4. Essentially a clock at the periphery stops when the detection of the first photons occurs. This feature can be implemented for every color pixel, or for example, for the group of pixels under each PDCU [pixel digital control unit]. [p. 7' 11. 7-10] Bennett discloses that in nuclear medicine imaging systems wherein "cameras convert scintillation events from radiation into electric signals that represent the x, y position coordinates of each event and the energy (z) of each event" (col. 3, 11. 36-46), "[g]enerally, it has been the practice to put the energy or intensity signal (z) through a pulse height analyzer or 'window' and to accept for processing only those signals within the energy limits of the window" (col. 3, 11. 47-50). Suddarth monitors radiation and/or metabolic activity in a subject such as a chemotherapy patient using a radiation sensor (25) which can be configured for direct conversion wherein ionizing radiation creates an electron-hole pair in a region of a detector and changes can be separated by a biasing electric field and collected as a current through or in the device, or indirect conversion which converts ionizing radiation to light in a scintillator 5 Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 and the light is detected by the electron-hole pair production mechanism (i-fi-f 2-3, 136). The sensor (25) can include an APD in Geiger mode (i-f 142). The Examiner asserts that Augusto's stopping of a clock upon detection of the first photons (p. 7, 11. 8-9) is a trigger signal indicating the start of an integration period and that a counter (p. 7, 1. 4) counts switching events associated with a plurality of photodiodes over the integration period (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4--5). Rather than counting switching events after the clock has stopped upon detection of the first photons, Augusto's counter, when an APD is operating in Geiger mode and before the clock has stopped, appears to count photons to ensure that due to the Geiger mode's extremely large gain factor, the APD, subsequent to absorbing one or more photons, is reset before it has absorbed enough photons that the current is high enough to cause the APD to overheat and thereby be permanently damaged (p. 6, 11. 13-17, 22-26). Augusto does not appear to count the photons over any particular integration time period. The Examiner asserts that in view of Bennett "it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to start counting in the method of Augusto et al. by triggering the counter when a plurality of switching events at the same time fall within an energy window, in order to process only those switching events within the energy limits of the window" (Final Act. 4), and in view of Bennett and Suddarth "it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a scintillator in the method of Augusto et al., in order to detect the bursts of light from the scintillator by counting when a 6 Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 plurality of switching events at the same time fall within an energy window so as to monitor radiation and/or metabolic activity in a subject" (Final Act. 10) or "by counting when the bias network current falls within an energy window so as to monitor radiation and/or metabolic activity in a subject" (Final Act. 12). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner does not address the differences between Augusto's method, Bennett's nuclear system imaging method and Suddarth's radiation monitoring method and explain why, regardless of those differences, Bennett and Suddarth would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify Augusto's method as proposed by the Examiner. Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants' claimed method. Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph The Examiner asserts that the Appellants' original disclosure lacks written descriptive support for the claim 19 limitation "terminating the counting before the end of the integration period in response to ... a current flowing through the biasing network falling below a second current threshold for a selected time interval" (Final Act. 2). The Appellants' original disclosure provides written descriptive support for that claim limitation as follows (Spec. p. 13): In one approach, the trigger validation circuitry 85 analyzes the current flowing through the bias network of the pixel 22. If the 7 Appeal2014-003728 Application 13/189,886 total current stays below a certain current threshold for a selected time interval (e.g. for 10 nanoseconds into the acquisition time period) as measured by a discriminator or other circuitry, then the acquisition is aborted and an automatic reset sequence is initiated in preparation for the next trigger. The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of lack of written descriptive support for the method claimed in the Appellants' claim 19. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3 and 10 over Augusto in view of Bennett, claim 4 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Steams, claim 5 over Augusto in view of Bennett, Steams and Crosetto, claims 6, 9, 11, and 20 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Suddarth, claim 7 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Young, claim 8 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Moehrs, claims 12, 13, 15, and 18 over Augusto in view of Moehrs, Suddarth and Bennett, claim 14 over Augusto in view of Moehrs, Suddarth, Bennett and Young, claim 16 over Augusto in view of Suddarth and Bennett and claim 1 7 over Augusto in view of Moehrs, Suddarth, Bennett and Steams are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation