Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13010982 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/010,982 0112112011
68174 7590 08/23/2016
GE HEALTHCARE
c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Zhengshe Liu
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.
248365-1 (GEMS :0445) 3743
EXAMINER
KAO, CHIH CHENG G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES ZHENGSHE LIU,
PAUL RICHARD GRANFORS, KENNETH SCOTT KUMP, PING XUE,
DONALD FAYETTE LANGLER, and BRIAN JOHN KOST
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-10, 12, 14--32, and 35-37. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to X-ray imaging systems and more
particularly to X-ray imaging systems using digital detectors (Spec. i-f 1;
claim 1 ).
1. An X-ray imaging system comprising:
an X-ray radiation source;
a source controller coupled to the source and configured to command
X-ray emission of X-rays for image exposures;
a digital X-ray detector configured to acquire X-ray image data
without communication from the source controller, wherein the detector
comprises a matrix of image pixels, and the detector is configured to detect
the beginning of an X-ray exposure by both continuously sampling the
matrix of image pixels and recharging the image pixels between sampling
prior to and during the X-ray exposure; and
a portable detector control device configured to communicate with the
digital X-ray detector.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Campbell (US 2007/0145280 Al, published June
28, 2007) in view of Petrick et al. (US 2006/0208195 Al, published
Sept. 21, 2006) ("Petrick"), and Tashiro et al. (US 2003/0086523 Al,
published May 8, 2003) ("Tashiro").
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Campbell in view of Petrick, Tashiro, and Bell (US
20071017 6109 A 1, published Aug. 2, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Campbell in view of Petrick, Tashiro, Besson et al. (US
2004/0249271 Al, published Dec. 9, 2004), Rotondo et al. (US
2007 /0183567 Al, published Aug. 9, 2007) ("Rotondo"), and Brackett
(US 7,116,807 Bl, issued Oct. 3, 2006).
4. Claims 9, 15-17, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nonaka (US 2002/0050568
Al, published May 2, 2002) in view of Yoshida et al. (US
2011/0024644 Al, published Feb. 3, 2011) ("Yoshida"), and Tashiro.
5. Claims 10, 24, and 36 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Yoshida, Tashiro, and Newman
et al. (US 2009/0129546 Al, published May 21, 2009) ("Newman").
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nonaka in view of Yoshida, Tashiro, and Granfors et al. (US
6,353,654 Bl, issued Mar. 5, 2002) ("Granfors").
7. Claims 14 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Yoshida, Tashiro, and Tashiro II
(US 6,801,598 B2, issued Oct. 5, 2004) ("Tashiro II").
8. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Yoshida, Tashiro, and Nicolas et
al. (US 2003/0081734 Al, published May 1, 2003) ("Nicolas").
1 Claim 3 5 instead of claim 3 6 is listed as a claim under this rejection on
pages 8 to 9 of the Final Action. However, it is clear that claim 36 should
have been listed as the claim under this rejection instead of claim 35 because
claim 36 recites the detector ready signal subject matter addressed in the
rejection. Because the body of the rejection makes clear that claim 36 is the
proper claim under rejection, the Examiner's typographical error is
considered harmless error.
3
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
9. Claims 20, 22, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Yoshida, Tashiro, and Campbell.
10. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nonaka in view of Yoshida, Tashiro, Pyyhtia et al. (US 6,380,528 Bl,
issued Apr. 30, 2002) ("Pyyhtia") and Tashiro II.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Tashiro fails to teach or suggest "detecting the
beginning of an X-ray exposure by both continuously sampling the image
pixels and recharging the image pixels between sampling prior to and during
the X-ray exposure" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8). 2 Appellants argue
that the claim limitation requires "continuously sampling the image pixels
prior to and during the X-ray exposure and recharging the image pixels
between each sampling prior to and during the X-ray exposure." Id.
Appellants contend that Tashiro teaches in Figures 5B and 5E that no
recharging (i.e., resetting) of pixels between sampling during X-ray
exposure (App. Br. 9).
The Examiner construes the claim 1 limitation, "both continuously
sampling the matrix of image pixels and recharging the image pixels
between sampling prior to and during the X-ray exposure," as including a
single resetting (i.e., recharging) of the pixels that occurs prior to X-ray
exposure and between a sampling prior to and a sampling during X-ray
2 Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings or conclusions regarding
Campbell, Petrick, Nonaka, or Yoshida (App. Br. 8-12, 14-15). Appellants'
arguments focus solely on the claim limitation the Examiner finds Tashiro
teaches. Id. The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Campbell,
Petrick, Nonaka, or Yoshida are located on pages 2-3 and 6-7 of the Final
Action.
4
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
exposure (Ans. 3, 5). The Examiner contends that the claims do not require
recharging of the pixels "between each sampling" as argued by Appellants
(Ans. 3--4).
During examination, "'claims ... are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re American Academy of
Science Tech. Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner's claim construction appears to be based solely on the
ordinary meaning of the claim language. The Examiner provides no citation
to the Specification to support the conclusion that the claim language
"recharging the image pixels between sampling prior to and during the X-ray
exposure" includes a single recharging that occurs between "sampling prior
to and during the X-ray exposure." In other words, the Examiner has not
shown that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification includes the single resetting of the pixels that occurs between a
sampling prior to and a sampling during X-ray exposure.
In contrast, Appellants cite to i-fi-121, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38--40, 43, 44, 46,
48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 61, 62, 64, 65, and Figures 10, 11, and 13 as support for
the limitation of continuously sampling the matrix of image pixels and
recharging the image pixels between sampling prior to and during the X-ray
exposure (App. Br. 3). The Specification at i136 describes sampling the
picture elements (i.e., pixels) prior to and during X-ray exposure and
applying a first and second voltage to the picture elements. The second
voltage is higher than the first voltage and is applied to the picture elements
not being sampled prior to receipt of X-ray radiation (Spec. i136). The first
5
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
and second voltage are applied to reduce transistor leakage in the discrete
picture elements (i.e., pixels) and are applied prior to and during X-ray
exposure (Spec. i-fi-1 65----67). The picture elements 102 in detector 22 has row
drivers 94 and readout electronics 96 that restore charge to the photodiode
120 in the pixels (Spec. i139). Charge may be restored to all picture
elements (i.e., pixels) 102 in a row simultaneously by each of the associated
readout channels (Spec. i1 40). The description in the Specification of
restoring charge to the photodiode in the pixels is with respect to Figure 4,
which further illustrates the use of control circuitry 84 to apply a first and
second voltage as described in i136 to the picture elements 102 (Spec.
,-r,-r 39--40).
Based upon these disclosures, we construe the claim language
"recharging the image pixels between sampling prior to and during the X-ray
exposure" as requiring that the image pixels be recharged between each
sampling occurring prior to the X-ray exposure and between each sampling
occurring during the X-ray exposure.
In light of our claim construction, we find that the Tashiro fails to
teach all the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro does not teach resetting the
charge of a pixel between each sampling during X-ray exposure. The
Examiner does find that Tashiro teaches the claim limitation as construed
supra . . Therefore, we reverse all the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of record.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
6
Appeal2014-009738
Application 13/010,982
ORDER
REVERSED
7