Ex Parte Franch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12600072 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/600,072 11113/2009 Thomas Franch
38107 7590 04/04/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. 0. 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.
2007P00683WOUS 5802
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUNK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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 FRANCH and ANDREAS THON 1
Appeal2014-002869
Application 12/600,072
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 14--18, 27, and 29.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Real Party in Interest is said to be Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Appeal Brief filed September 9, 2013 ("App. Br.") at 1.
2 Final Action entered April 9, 2013 ("Final Act.") at 2-10. Claims 11, 19, 21-23,
25, 26, and 32 stand withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner as being
drawn to a nonelected invention. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/600,072
INTRODUCTION
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a virtual or reconfigurable pixel
array for a diagnostic imaging system and a method for calculating a time stamp
for a virtual pixel. Spec. 2, 11. 9-23. Details of the appealed subject matter are
recited in representative claims 1, 14, and 27, 3 which are reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A virtual pixel array for a diagnostic imaging system,
including:
a virtual pixel comprising at least a scintillator crystal and a
plurality of photodetectors optically coupled to the scintillator crystal,
which generate output signals in response to scintillations in the
crystal, wherein the photodetectors are smaller than the crystal to
which they are coupled; and
a virtualizer that processes the output signals associated with a
gamma ray hit on the scintillator crystal as detected by the plurality of
photodetectors and calculates a time stamp for the gamma ray hit.
14. A method of calculating a time stamp for a virtual pixel,
including:
receiving a gamma ray hit on a scintillator crystal of the virtual
pixel;
evaluating output signals from each of a plurality of
photodetectors optically coupled to the scintillator crystal to
determine an energy and a photodetector time stamp for each
photodetector associated with the gamma ray hit, wherein the
photodetectors are smaller than the scintillator crystal to which they
are optically coupled;
calculating a total energy of the gamma ray hit by combining
the energies detected by the plurality of photodetectors associated
with the gamma ray hit; and
calculating a time stamp for the gamma ray hit as a function of
the photodetector time stamp registered by at least one photodetector
in the plurality of photodetectors.
3 Independent claims 1, 14, and 27 are the broadest claims on this appeal.
2
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/600,072
27. A reconfigurable pixel array, including:
an array of photodetectors;
an array of scintillator crystals in which the crystals are any of a
plurality of selectable sizes; and
a processor that processes the output signals associated with a
gamma ray hit on one of the scintillator crystals as detected by a
respective portion of the array of photodetectors to calculate a time
stamp for the gamma ray hit;
wherein the photodetectors are smaller than the scintillator
crystals to which they are attached.
App. Br. 17, 19-20, and 23 (emphasis added).
Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection maintained in
the Examiner's Answer: 4
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 14, 17, 18, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Shibuya;5
2. Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Shibuya and Rogers; 6 and
3. Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Shibuya and Sayag. 7
4 Examiner's Answer entered October 23, 2013 ("Ans."); Final Act. 2-10.
5 WO 2008/023451 Al published in the name of Shibuya et al. on February 28,
2008 ("Shibuya").
6 US 4,864, 140 issued to Rogers et al. on September 5, 1989 ("Rogers").
7 US 5,715,292 issued to Sayag et al. on February 3, 1998 ("Sayag").
3
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/600,072
DISCUSSION
"Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all
elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim. A prior art disclosure that
'almost' meets that standard may render the claim invalid under § 103; it does not
'anticipate."' Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Moreover, anticipation cannot be predicated on conjecture. See W. L. Gore
& Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721F.2d1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983). If a prior art
reference is subject to two interpretations, and only one of these interpretations
discloses all elements of the claimed invention, then it is ambiguous and will not
support an anticipation rejection. See In re Hughes, 345 F.2d 184, 188 (CCPA
1965); see also In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (CCPA 1962); In re Cramblet, 62
F.2d 358, 359 (CCPA 1932).
Independent claims 1, 14, and 27 recite a software-based or hardware-based
virtual pixel having, inter alia, photodetectors that are smaller than a scintillator
crystal to which they are coupled. In other words, the photodetectors are contained
within a region of the virtual pixel that is smaller than a region occupied by the
scintillator crystal. Spec. 4, 11. 28-32 and 5, 11. 1-9 and 28-31 and Figs. 1 and 2.
According to the Specification, this arrangement of the photodetectors and the
scintillator crystal enables the virtual pixel be configurable to various pixel sizes
using a virtualization scheme, thereby allowing the same detector chip to be
employed on a variety of scanners as compared to a monolithic pixel of the same
size. Spec. 4, 11. 9-32 and 5, 11. 1-22.
In rejecting claims 1, 14, and 27, the Examiner finds that Shibuya anticipates
the claimed virtual pixel having, inter alia, photodetectors that are smaller than a
scintillator crystal to which they are coupled. Final Act. . 2-3, 5-7. To show that
Shibuya teaches the photodetectors that are smaller than the scintillator crystal, the
4
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/600,072
Examiner focuses on page 15, lines 22-25 of Shibuya, which states that "[i]n a
radiation detector of the PET scanner, the combination of a scintillator crystal and
an optical detector does not always have a one-to-one correspondence." Id. The
Examiner then reasons (Ans. 2-3) that
[i]n the case where there is not a one-to-one correspondence, there are
two possibilities for direct coupling between scintillator crystal(s) and
photodetector(s). The first possibility is for a plurality of smaller
scintillator crystals to be directly coupled to a single larger
photodetector surface. The second possibility is for a plurality of
smaller photodetectors to be directly coupled to a single larger
scintillator crystal surface.
The Examiner also refers to page 13, lines 18-22, of Shibuya, which states
that "[t]he radiation detector 40, which was suggested by the applicant in [a prior
art publication], includes, e.g., a 256-channel position sensitive photomultiplier
tube (PS-PMT) 21anda6x6 four-layered scintillator crystal block 23." Ans. 4.
The Examiner then concludes that "Shibuya et al. expressly teach [that] 256
smaller photodetectors coupled to 36 larger scintillator crystals is knov,rn in the
art." Id. at 4--5.
However, the Examiner's reasoning and conclusion are flawed. As correctly
pointed out by Appellants, the "one-to-one correspondence" taught by Shibuya
refers to a correspondence between information output from an optical detector and
an individual crystal stored in a histogram, rather a size difference between
photodetectors and crystals. Shibuya 15-16; App. Br. 5---6, 8-12. Furthermore,
even assuming that the 256 channels or anodes of the position photomultiplier tube
21 of Shibuya can each be considered to be a photodetector, there is no indication
that these 256 channels or anodes are coupled to a scintillator crystal of the 6x6
four-layered scintillator crystal block 23 such that they are contained within a
region that is smaller than the region occupied by the scintillator crystal. Shibuya
5
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/600,072
13, 11. 18-22 and Fig. 4. Rather, Shibuya illustrates that the photomultiplier tube
21 occupies a region which is larger than the region occupied by the scintillator
crystal block 23. Id.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 14,
17, 18, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Shibuya.
As to the Examiner's obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
additional teachings of Rogers and Sayag were not relied upon by the Examiner to
remedy the above deficiencies of Shibuya. Rather, they were relied upon to show
the features recited in dependent claims 3, 4, 15, 16, and 29.
Accordingly, based on the same reason stated above, we also reverse the
Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Shibuya and Rogers and claim 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Shibuya and Sayag.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10,
14, 17, 18, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 3, 4, 15, 16, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6