Ex Parte Hintenlang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2018

13809675 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/809,675 0111112013
24504 7590 06/25/2018
THOMAS I HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Eric Hintenlang
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.
222106-1585 2339
EXAMINER
TSAI, HSIEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 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):
uspatents@tkhr.com
ozzie. liggins@tkhr.com
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ERIC HINTENLANG and
MATTHEW ROBERT HOERNER
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed January 11,
2013 ("Spec."); Final Office Action entered January 29, 2016 ("Final Act.");
Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2016 ("Appeal Br.") Advisory Action entered
May 12, 2016 ("Adv. Act."); Examiner's Answer entered November 3, 2016
("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed December 30, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, University of Florida Research Foundation,
Inc., which is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
The Claimed Invention
Appellant's disclosure relates to methods and systems for x-ray field
and light field alignment. Abstract; Spec. i-fi-12, 16. According to the
Specification, light fields are used in x-ray imaging (e.g., mammography) to
illuminate the area irradiated by the x-ray field, and the alignment of the x-
ray field with the light field is generally sought to be maintained within
certain alignment tolerance levels to protect from improper exposure. Spec.
i-fi-12, 15. Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a system that includes
an array of scintillation detectors that quantify the alignment between the
light field and x-ray field. Id. i-f 16, Fig. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (Appeal
Br. 22) (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded):
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of scintillation detectors distributed about edges
of a light field associated with an x-ray field, individual
scintillation detectors of the plurality of scintillation detectors
comprising a scintillator element extending inward from a
corresponding edge of the light field to a distal end of the
scintillator element, the scintillator element configured to
provide scintillation photons via a proximal end of the
scintillator element in response to excitation by the x-ray field;
a detector interface in communication with the plurality of
scintillation detectors, the detector interface configured to
simultaneously obtain exposure data for the plurality of
scintillation detectors based at least in part upon the scintillation
photons received from the proximal end of the scintillator
elements; and
a computing device in communication with the detector
interface, the computing device configured to determine an
2
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
alignment distance between the light field and the x-ray field
based at least in part upon the exposure data.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Polkus et al.,
(hereinafter "Po lkus ")
Testardi
Sandrik et al.,
(hereinafter "Sandrik")
Lacroix et al.,
(hereinafter "Lacroix")
Ushino
US 2002/0114426 Al Aug. 22, 2002
US 2003/0163016 Al Aug. 28, 2003
US 2006/0118701 Al June 8, 2006
US 2009/0236510 Al Sept. 24, 2009
WO 2010/017218 A2 Feb. 11, 2010
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandrik in view of Polkus
("Rejection l "). Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandrik in view of Polkus, in further
view of Lacroix ("Rejection 2"). Final Act. 7.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sandrik in view of Polkus and Lacroix, in further view of
Testardi ("Rejection 3"). Final Act. 9.
4. Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sandrik in view of Polkus, in further view of U shino
("Rejection 4"). Final Act. 9.
3
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections based on the fact finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer,
Advisory Action, and Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
Rejection 1
Claims 1 and 11
Appellant argues claims 1 and 11 as a group. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br.
2. We select claim 1 as representative and claim 11 stands or falls with
claim 1. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Sandrik and Polkus
suggests a system satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and thus,
concludes that the combination would have rendered claim 1 obvious. Final
Act. 2-5 (citing Sandrik i-fi-16, 67, 78, 84, 86, Figs. 7, 13, 14; Polkus i-fi-13, 27,
31, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that Sandrik teaches or suggests the
majority of the limitations of claim 1, but that the reference does not
explicitly teach a plurality of scintillation detectors, that the scintillator
detectors provide scintillation photons in response to excitation by the x-ray
field, and the scintillation photons provide exposure data. Id. at 3--4. The
Examiner, however, relies on Polkus for teaching these missing claim
elements. Id. at 4.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Polkus teaches an x-ray
alignment system comprising a plurality of scintillation detectors that
convert x-ray photons received on the detector surface in response to
4
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
excitation by an x-ray field and provide processing module data regarding
the location and intensity of the detected image edges. Final Act. 4 (citing
Polkus i-fi-13, 27, 31, Fig. 3 (elements 78, 80)).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to incorporate
scintillation detectors and corresponding scintillator elements in
Sandrik's x-ray alignment system, because scintillation
detectors provide processing module data regarding the location
and intensity of the detected image edges, as taught by Polkus,
so that Sandrik can further obtain x-ray sensitive signals at the
edges of the light field.
Id. at 4 (citing Sandrik i1 6). The Examiner further concludes that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use scintillation
detectors because "a scintillator is used in available digital detectors, as
taught by Polkus." Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest "individual
scintillation detectors of the plurality of scintillation detectors," as recited in
the claim. Appeal Br. 4---6; see also Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellant
argues that Sandrik does not teach or suggest that the plurality of sensors
212 is a "plurality of scintillation detectors" or that the sensors 212 provide
scintillation photons via a proximal end of the scintillator element that is
opposite the distal end. Appeal Br. 5---6.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and well-stated reasoning
provided by the Examiner at pages 3-5 of the Answer. In particular, as the
Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 3), Appellant's argument is premised on
what Appellant contends the Sandrik reference teaches individually, and not
5
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
the combined teachings of the Sandrik and Polkus references as a whole and
what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA1981).
Contrary to what Appellant's argument suggests, the Examiner relies
on Polkus-not Sandrik-for teaching the "plurality of scintillation
detectors" element of claim 1. Ans. 3-5. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 4),
Polkus teaches an x-ray alignment system comprising a plurality of
scintillation detectors 22 comprising a scintillator element 80 that converts
x-ray photons received on the detector surface in response to excitation by
an x-ray field. Polkus i-fi-127, 31, Fig. 3.
The Examiner also provides a reasonable basis to evince why one of
ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Sandrik's system based on
Polkus' teachings to arrive at Appellant's claimed invention. Ans. 4
(explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
incorporate Polkus' scintillation detectors and corresponding scintillator
elements in Sandrik's x-ray alignment system because scintillation detectors
provide processing module data regarding the location and intensity of the
detected image edges and obtaining x-ray sensitive signals at the edges of
the light field). See also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007) (explaining that any need or problem known in the art can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appellant argues that the cited art neither teaches nor suggests "the
scintillator element configured to provide scintillation photons via a
proximal end of the scintillator element" recitation of claim 1. Appeal Br.
6
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
6-9; see also Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant argues that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Polkus that the scintillating element 80 is
configured to provide scintillation photons via a proximal end and the x-rays
produce photons that exit the proximal end (or edge) of the scintillating
element 80. Appeal Br. 6-8. Appellant contends that the "scintillator 80 is
not consistent with claim 1" because, in contrast to the claimed invention,
Polkus' x-rays produce photons that exit from the bottom surface of the
scintillator 80 (id. at 8) and that "such a modification would render the
detector of Polkus unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" (id. at 10).
Appellant's arguments in this regard (Appeal Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3)
are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. We begin
our analysis by determining the meaning of the claims, giving terms the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re
Suitco Swface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
It is well established that "the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee." Id.
Having reviewed the Specification, we determine that the
Specification does not limit or provide a special definition for the phrase
"via a proximal end," as recited in claim 1. We therefore apply the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification and construe the phrase
7
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
"photons via a proximal end of the scintillator element" to mean the photons
are located at proximal ends of the scintillator element, which is consistent
with the Examiner's interpretation of the claim. See Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 5.
Contrary to what Appellants argue, neither the language of the claims
nor the Specification requires that the photons exit the proximal end (or
edge) of the scintillating element. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("[L ]imitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification."). The fact that the photons may exit from the bottom
surface of Polkus' scintillator element 80 does not negate or take away from
the references' teaching or suggestion that the photons are located at the
element's proximal end. See Polkus, Fig. 3; see also Sandrik, Fig. 13.
Thus, applying the proper interpretation of the claim language and
based on the fact-finding and reasoning provided by the Examiner at pages
3-6 of the Answer and pages 2-5 of the Final Office Action, we concur with
the Examiner's determination that the combination of Sandrik and Polkus
suggests all of the limitations of claim 1, including "the scintillator element
configured to provide scintillation photons via a proximal end." Sandrik i-fi-1
6, 67, 78, 84, 86, Figs. 7, 13, 14; Polkus i-fi-13, 27, 31, Fig. 3.
In particular, we concur with the Examiner's determination (Ans. 3--4)
that based on Sandrik' s disclosure of a system having a plurality of light
detectors/sensors distributed about the edges of a light field with a
configuration similar to the configuration of the claimed system (compare
Fig. 13 of Sandrik with Fig. 1 of Appellant's Specification) and Polkus'
disclosure regarding a scintillator element (Polkus i-fi-127, 31, Fig. 3),
Sandrik' s system, as modified to incorporate the scintillator element of
Polkus, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill "the scintillator
8
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
element configured to provide scintillation photons via a proximal end"
recitation of claim 1.
Appellant's arguments do not reveal any reversible error in the
Examiner's factual findings and analysis in this regard.
Appellant's contentions that Polkus does not teach or suggest "a
plurality of scintillation detectors distributed about edges of a light field"
(Appeal Br. 7) and "that photons generated by x-rays are provided from the
edge of the scintillator 80" (id. at 9) are not persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection because they are based on what Polkus teaches
individually and not what the combined teachings of the cited references as a
whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill. Keller, 642 F .2d at
425. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 5-6) and previously discussed above,
Sandrik teaches the plurality of sensors distributed about edges of a light
field (Sandrik, Fig. 13, i-f 74) and Polkus teaches the specific type of sensors
being scintillation detectors (Polkus, Fig. 3, i-fi-127, 31 ), and it is the
combined teachings of these references-not the teachings of Polkus alone-
-that would have suggested Appellant's claimed invention to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant's contention that "such a modification would render the
detector of Polkus unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" (Appeal Br. 10) is
not persuasive because it is conclusory and Appellant does not provide an
adequate technical explanation to support it. Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Sandrik does not teach or suggest "a detector
interface in communication with the plurality of scintillation detectors" and
"the detector interface configured to simultaneously obtain exposure data for
9
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
the plurality of scintillation detectors," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-
11; see also Reply Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellant contends that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Sandrik that "the interface 1410 is in
communication with the alleged scintillation detectors (i.e., sensors 212)"
(Appeal Br. 10) or that "the controller 1408 simultaneously obtains exposure
data for the plurality of scintillation detectors" (id. at 11 ), as required by the
claim.
We do not find Appellant's arguments in this regard persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and
reasoning provided by the Examiner at pages 3--4 and 6-7 of the Answer.
In particular, we concur with the Examiner's determination (Ans. 6-7)
that based on Sandrik's teachings that the controller 1408 transmits
information describing the location of all of the edges, the "transmission is
performed through a conventional computer," and a computer
interface/controller having such capability was "well known to those in the
art" (Sandrik i-f 86), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art for the controller to be configured to simultaneously obtain exposure
data. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results."); see also Sandrik i-f 78 (discussing the benefit
of "[h ]aving a visual real time display of the deviation of the visible light
and the X-ray fields on all four outer perimeters ... to actively monitor the
deviations while the X-ray field is aligned with the visible light field").
Appellant's assertions at pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief and pages
3--4 of the Reply Brief are conclusory and, without more, are insufficient to
10
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
rebut or otherwise establish reversible error in the Examiner's factual
findings and conclusions in this regard. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705.
Claims 8 and 9
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
wherein the detector interface comprises a plurality of readout
devices, each scintillation detector coupled to at least one of the
readout devices.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App'x).
Id.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further recites:
wherein the detector interface further comprises a routing hub
in communication with the plurality of readout devices, the
routing hub configured to transfer exposure data from the
plurality of readout devices to the computing device.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9
should be reversed for the same reasons as the Examiner's rejection of claim
1. Appeal Br. 12. We do not find this argument persuasive of reversible
error in the Examiner's rejection for the same reasons previously discussed
above regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's rejection should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest the "wherein the
detector interface comprises a plurality of readout devices" recitation of
claim 8. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant
contends that "Sandrik does not teach or suggest that the displays 1326,
1328, 1330 and 1332 are readout devices that are coupled to a scintillation
detector." Appeal Br. 12.
11
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 because it is conclusory (De Blauwe,
736 F.2d at 705) and we concur with the fact-finding and reasoning provided
by the Examiner at pages 6-7 of the Answer and pages 3-5 of the Final
Office Action, which is supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the
record. Sandrik i-fi-16, 67, 78, 84, 86, Figs. 7, 13, 14; Polkus i-fi-13, 27, 31, Fig.
3.
In particular, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 7; Final Act. 3) and contrary
to what Appellant argues, Sandrik teaches a detector interface 1410 having a
sensing element/detector 210/212 connected to readouts, i.e., "visual
displays 1326, 1328, 1330, and 1332." Sandrik i178; see also id. i184, Figs.
13, 14. Paragraph 78 of Sandrik also explicitly teaches that the "displays ...
1326, 1328, 1330, and 1330 are collectively known as position and deviation
read outs."
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection should be reversed
because the cited art does not teach or suggest the "routing hub" recitation of
claim 9. Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellant argues that "Sandrik does
not teach or suggest that the information transmitted by the controller 1408
is transferred from the displays 1326, 1328, 1330 and 1332 (i.e., the alleged
readout devices)." Id. Appellant contends that Sandrik does not mention "a
routing hub" and the "addition of Polkus does not cure the deficiencies of
the rejection." Id.
We do not find this argument persuasive because it is conclusory and,
without more, insufficient to rebut or otherwise establish reversible error in
the Examiner's fact-finding and reasoning provided at pages 6-7 of the
Answer and pages 3-5 of the Final Office Action, which as previously
12
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
discussed above, we find is supported by a preponderance of the evidence in
the record.
Appellant's assertion that Sandrik does not mention "a routing hub"
(Appeal Br. 13) is not persuasive because "[t]he specific limitation need not
be disclosed in haec verba in the reference." In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660
(1977); see also In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979) ("[A]
reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also
for what it fairly suggests."). Although Sandrik does not expressly use the
term "routing hub" to describe controller 1408, as the Examiner determines
(Ans. 7; Final Act. 5), the reference does teach that controller 1408 transmits
information from sensors connected to readouts 1326, 1328, 1330 and 1332
to computing interface/device 1410/1400 (Sandrik i-fi-178, 86, Figs. 13, 14),
which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that controller 1408
satisfies the "in communication with the plurality of readout devices" and
"configured to transfer exposure data from the plurality of readout devices to
the computing device" limitations of claim 9, and thus, corresponds to the
claimed "routing hub." See Spec. i127 (disclosing that the "routing hub"
transfers data from each readout device to a computer device).
In particular, paragraph 86 of Sandrik discloses:
A controller 1408 operably coupled to the sensors 210
and 212, receives electrical signals from the sensors 210 and
212 indicating the extent of the X-ray and visible
electromagnetic energy. The controller 1408 accordingly
determines where the edge of each field is projected or falls
upon each of the sensors, and the controller 1408 transmits
information describing where the edges project or fall.
Id. i186. See also id. i178 (disclosing that position information of each
sensor is displayed in readouts 1326, 1328, 1330, and 1332).
13
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
Claims 12. 13. and 17-20
Appellant argues claims 12, 13, and 17-20 as a group. Appeal Br. 14;
Reply Br. 5. We select claim 12 as representative and claims 13 and 17-20
stand or fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 12 recites:
A method, comprising:
obtaining exposure data from a plurality of scintillation
detectors distributed about edges of a light field during
irradiation by an x-ray field, individual scintillation detectors of
the plurality of scintillation detectors comprising a scintillator
element extending inward from a corresponding edge of the
light field to a distal end of the scintillator element, where the
exposure data is based at least in part upon scintillation
photons received from a proximal end of the scintillator
elements in response to excitation of the scintillator elements
by the x-ray field; and
determining an alignment distance between the light field
and the x-ray field based at least in part upon the exposure data,
the alignment distance corresponding to the distance between a
first edge of the light field and a corresponding edge of the x-
ray field.
Appeal Br. 23-24 (Claims App'x) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).
Although Appellant includes a separate heading and section of the
Appeal Brief in response to the Examiner's rejection regarding independent
claim 12 (Appeal Br. 14), Appellant does not present any new or additional
arguments for the patentability of the claim. Rather, Appellant repeats and
relies on principally the same arguments previously presented in support of
the patentability of claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 14--16 (arguments
regarding the patentability of claim 12) with Appeal Br. 4--11 (arguments
regarding patentability of claim 1 ).
14
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
We do not find these arguments persuasive for reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection for the same reasons previously discussed above in
affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claims 14 and 16
Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and adds the limitation "wherein the
exposure data includes a total number of counts registered during a
predefined irradiation interval." Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App'x). Claim 16
depends from claim 14 and further recites "wherein the exposure data
includes a time corresponding to each registered count during the predefined
irradiation interval." Id.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 14 and 16 should be
reversed for the same reasons as claim 12. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply
Br. 6. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection for the same reasons previously discussed above
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Appellant further argues that because "Polkus does not disclose or
suggest that counts are registered," and the reference neither discloses nor
suggests that "the exposure data includes a total number of counts registered
during a predefined irradiation interval" as recited claim 14 or "the exposure
data includes a time corresponding to each registered count during the
predefined irradiation interval I," as recited in claim 16, respectively.
Appeal Br. 1 7.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection because they are conclusory and Appellant does
not direct us to persuasive evidence in the record to support them. De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed.
15
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
Cir. 2011) (holding that a "naked assertion" that the prior art fails to disclose
or suggest a claim limitation is not an argument in support of separate
patentability).
Based on the fact-finding and the reasoning provided by the Examiner
at pages 8-9 of the Answer and page 6 of the Final Office Action, we agree
with the Examiner's determination that the combination of Sandrik and
Polkus suggests that the counts are registered, as claimed. In particular, as
the Examiner finds (Ans. 8-9), Polkus teaches that the photodetectors
convert the light photons to electrical signals which are representative of the
number of photons impacting the detector surface. See Polkus i-f 27.
Moreover, we concur with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that under the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the term
"registered" would encompass that the counts are "detected" or "entered" in
the system. Suitco, 603 F.3d at 1259---60. See also Spec. i-f 30 (disclosing
that the "counts are registered by the corresponding readout devices 212 ...
during exposure"), i-f 33 ("The exposure data may also include the time
corresponding to each registered count, the total number of counts registered
during a predefined irradiation interval, the total number of counts from a
reference fiber 221, or other information as can be appreciated.").
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification, we concur with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that when Polkus'
counts (number of photons) are detected or entered into the photodetectors,
Polkus' exposure data are registered during a predefined irradiation interval
(i.e., during examination), as claimed. Polkus i-f 27.
16
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11-
14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
Sandrik and Polkus.
Rejection 2
Claims 2. 3. 5. and 7
Appellant argues claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 as a group. Appeal Br. 18. We
select claim 2 as representative and claims 3, 5, and 7 stand or fall with
claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c )(1 )(iv).
Appellant does not present any additional substantive arguments in
response to the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 7. Rather,
Appellant relies on the same arguments previously presented above in
response to the Examiner's Rejection 1 regarding claim 1 and the
combination of Sandrik and Polkus. See Appeal Br. 17-18.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for the same reasons discussed above for affirming the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 (Rejection 1, stated above), we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 as obvious over the
combination of Sandrik, Polkus, and Lacroix (Rejection 2, stated above).
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites "wherein the
scintillator elements are centered about the corresponding edge of the light
field." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App'x).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 should be
reversed for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. We do not find
Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's
17
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
rejection for the same reasons previously discussed above regarding the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 6
should be reversed because "Polkus does not teach or suggest that the
alleged scintillator element (i.e., scintillator 80) is centered about an edge of
the light field" and the "addition of [Lacroix] does not cure the deficiencies
of the rejection." Appeal Br. 18-19.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection because they are conclusory and Appellant does
not identify persuasive evidence in the record to support them. De Blauwe,
736 F.2d at 705.
Moreover, on the record before us, we find that a preponderance of
the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the Examiner's
determination (Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 7-8) that the cited art does suggest
"wherein the scintillator elements are centered about the corresponding edge
of the light field," as recited in claim 6.
In particular, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 10), Figure 8 of Polkus
shows that the location of the detector covers the center edge of the light
field and Figure 13 of Sandrik shows that the sensors are centered about the
corresponding edge of light field 206, and thus, that the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested that the scintillator elements are,
indeed, "centered about the corresponding edge of the light field" in the
manner claimed.
Appellant's argument, without more, is insufficient to rebut or
establish reversible error in the Examiner's factual findings and analysis in
this regard.
18
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further recites "wherein the
detector interface is lined with lead shielding." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims
App'x).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 should be
reversed for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 19. We do not find
Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection for the same reasons previously discussed above regarding the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 10
should be reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest the
recitation "wherein the detector interface is lined with lead shielding."
Appeal Br. 19--20; see also Reply Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellant contends
that the rejection is improper because "claim 10 has not been officially
rejected in view of the '418 reference" (Appeal Br. 19) and "the '418
reference does not disclose or suggest that an apparatus such as an interface
device is lined with lead shielding" (id. at 20).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and for the reasons
provided by the Examiner at pages 10-11 of the Answer and 7-8 of the
Final Office Action.
In particular, on the record before us, we concur with the Examiner's
determination (Ans. 10-11) that because, as evidenced by paragraphs 25 and
30 of U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0031418 Al (the "'418 reference"),
it was known in the x-ray art to protect detecting components with lead
shields, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
19
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
time the invention was made to incorporate a lead shield lining in modified-
Sandrik' s detector interface.
Appellant's argument is misplaced because it focuses on a specific
embodiment depicted in Figure 5B and discussed at paragraphs 63 and 64 of
the '418 reference, rather than the Examiner's obviousness conclusion,
which refers to paragraphs 25 and 30 of the evidentiary reference. A
reference is good for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
and not only for what it sets forth as preferred. See, e.g., Merck & Co., Inc.
v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Rejection 3
Appellant does not present any additional substantive arguments in
response to the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Rather, Appellant relies on
the same arguments previously presented above in response to the
Examiner's Rejection 1 regarding claim 1 and the combination of Sandrik
and Polkus. See Reply Br. 9.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for the same reasons discussed above for affirming the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 (Rejection 1, stated above), we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as obvious over the combination of Sandrik,
Polkus, Lacroix, and Testardi (Rejection 3, stated above).
Rejection 4
Appellant does not present any additional substantive arguments in
response to the Examiner's rejection of claim 15. Rather, Appellant relies
on the same arguments previously presented above in response to the
20
Appeal2017-003306
Application 13/809,675
Examiner's Rejection 1 regarding claim 12 and the combination of Sandrik
and Polkus. See Appeal Br. 21.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for the same reasons discussed above for affirming the
Examiner's rejection of claim 12 as obvious over the combination of Sandrik
and Polkus (see Rejection 1, stated above), we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 15 as obvious over the combination of Sandrik, Polkus,
and Ushino (Rejection 4, stated above).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
21