Ex Parte Jiang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2009

11380488 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte HAOCHUAN JIANG, DAVID M. HOFFMAN, and
JAMES S. VARTULI
________________

Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided:1 June 17, 2009
________________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, 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 1-3 and 5-21, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

2
The Invention
The Appellants claim a computed tomography (CT) detector array.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A CT detector array comprising:

a scintillator pack having a plurality of scintillators formed of a
material configured to illuminate upon reception of x-rays, each scintillator
comprising a single crystal scintillation element that spans the distance
between a top surface and a bottom surface of the scintillator pack;

a photodiode array optically coupled to the scintillator pack and
configured to detect illumination from the scintillator pack and output
electrical signals responsive thereto, the photodiode array having a plurality
of photodiodes;

wherein each photodiode is configured to receive illumination from at
least two single crystal scintillation elements; and

wherein the scintillator pack and the photodiode array are optically
coupled to one another.

The References
Tran (Tran ‘879) 5,391,879 Feb. 21, 1995
Tran (Tran ‘377) 5,418,377 May 23, 1995
Lambert 5,698,857 Dec. 16, 1997
Kopp 6,246,743 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Homme 6,262,422 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-3, 7-11, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Homme; claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Homme in view of Tran ‘377; claims 14-17 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kopp in view of Homme; claims 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kopp in view of Homme and Tran ‘377; and
Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

3
claims 1, 5-8, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tran ‘879 in view of
Lambert.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tran ‘879 in view
of Lambert, and reverse the other rejections.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Homme
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Homme inherently discloses a single crystal scintillation
element?
Findings of Fact
Homme discloses a scintillator (7) comprising columnar crystals of
Ti-doped CsI grown by vapor deposition to a thickness of 600 µm on the
light-receiving surface of a light-receiving device array (6) comprising
devices (2) that can be photodiodes (col. 3, ll. 60-62; col. 5, ll. 53-58;
Fig. 4).
Analysis
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner argues (Ans. 12):
Homme et al. disclosed that the scintillation elements (7) are
columnar crystals (abstract). A person skilled in the art would
recognize the word “crystal” is synonymous with “single crystal.”
Non-single crystal scintillators are routinely labeled in the field as
Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

4
crystalline or polycrystalline, while single crystal scintillators are
routinely referred to as “crystal scintillators.” There is nothing in the
teachings of Homme et al. to suggest that the scintillation elements
are polycrystalline. It is also noted that Homme et al. disclosed that
the columnar crystals of Ti-doped CsI are grown according to vapor
deposition method (column 5, lines 52-58), which lends further
support that the scintillation elements are in fact single crystals.

The Appellants argue that “based on the limited disclosure in
Homme et al., one cannot determine whether each of the columnar crystals
disclosed in Homme et al. is a polycrystalline structure or a single crystal
structure” (Br. 4). The Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner mistakenly
equates each columnar crystal as necessarily comprising a single crystal
scintillation element; however, there is no support for such an assertion
based solely on the teachings of Homme et al.” (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner has provided no evidence in support of the arguments
that “crystal” means “single crystal” in the art or that columnar crystals
grown by vapor deposition necessarily are single crystals. The Examiner’s
mere assertion to that effect is not sufficient for establishing that Homme’s
columnar crystals inherently are single crystals.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Homme inherently discloses a single crystal scintillation
element.

Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

5
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 5, 6, 12, and 13
over Homme in view of Tran ‘377, claims 14-17 and 20
over Kopp in view of Homme, and claims 18 and 19
over Kopp in view of Homme and Tran ‘377
In each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 5, 6, 12,
and 13 over Homme in view of Tran ‘377, claims 14-17 and 20 over Kopp
in view of Homme, and claims 18 and 19 over Kopp in view of Homme and
Tran ‘377, the Examiner relies upon Homme for a disclosure of a single
crystal scintillator (Ans. 5-8). As pointed out above regarding the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), that reliance is improper. Also, the Examiner
does not set forth any rationale as to how the applied references would have
rendered a single crystal scintillator prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 over Homme in view of Tran ‘377, claims 14-17 and
20 over Kopp in view of Homme, and claims 18 and 19 over Kopp in view
of Homme and Tran ‘377.
Rejection of claims 1, 5-8, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Tran ‘879 in view of Lambert
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied references would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, making the Tran ‘879 pixelized
phosphors as single crystals?
Findings of Fact
Tran ‘879 discloses a radiation detector comprising phosphor screen
pixelized phosphors (which correspond to the Appellants’ plurality of
Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

6
scintillators) that are smaller than associated sensor surface pixels (which
correspond to the Appellants’ photodiode array) (col. 3, ll. 20-26). “[T]he
ratio of the surface area of a phosphor pixel to the surface area of a sensor
pixel is in the range of about 1:1 to 1:64” (col. 3, ll. 32-34; col. 4, ll. 11-14).
Lambert discloses scintillators that are coupled with photodiodes and
“can be fashioned as single crystals, or as sintered polycrystalline pieces of
high optical clarity” (col. 3, ll. 27-28, 34-35).
Analysis
The Appellants point out that in Lambert, a single scintillator (22) is
coupled at its rear end face (24) to a photodetector (26) (col. 10, ll. 46-48;
Fig. 2) (Br. 6). The Appellants argue that Lambert’s structure is in direct
contradiction to the Tran ‘879 structure wherein a plurality of phosphor
pixels (scintillator elements) correspond to a single sensor element
(photodetector) (Br. 6). Thus, the Appellants argue, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have had no motivation to combine the references (Reply
Br. 5).
The motivation would have been to provide a suitable form for the
Tran ‘879 pixelized phosphors. Lambert does not indicate that the single
crystal scintillator elements are effective only when each is coupled to a
single photodetector. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation that Lambert’s single crystals would be an effective
form for the Tran ‘879 pixelized phosphors. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success …. For obviousness under § 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success”). Hence, one of ordinary
skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have made
Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

7
the Tran ‘879 pixelized phosphors in single crystal form. See KSR Int’l. Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In making an obviousness
determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied references would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, making the Tran ‘879 pixelized
phosphors as single crystals.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Homme, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 5, 6, 12,
and 13 over Homme in view of Tran ‘377, claims 14-17 and 20 over Kopp
in view of Homme, and claims 18 and 19 over Kopp in view of Homme and
Tran ‘377 are reversed. The rejection of claims 1, 5-8, and 11-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tran ‘879 in view of Lambert is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

Appeal 2009-002789
Application 11/380,488

8
PL Initial:
sld

ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (GEMS)
136 S WISCONSIN ST
PORT WASHINGTON, WI 53074