Ex Parte Michel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

14485916 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/485,916 09/15/2014
28524 7590 11/19/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian J. Michel
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.
2010Pl3558US01 9101
EXAMINER
V ALENTINER, JEREMY SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN J. MICHEL, MAURIZIO CONTI,
RONALD GRAZIOSO, PETER CARL COHEN,
A. ANDREW CAREY, and LARRY BYARS
Appeal2017-011540
Application 14/485,916
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applicant/ Appellant (Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.)
appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
3---6, and 8-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The claims are to a computer-readable medium and method for
analyze nuclear imaging detector data. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
stored thereon a plurality of instructions, which when executed
by a processor, cause the processor to analyze data from a
nuclear imaging detector having a plurality of blocks arranged
Appeal 2017-011540
Application 14/485,916
in a two dimensional array, said plurality of blocks being
populated with scintillator block detectors, by:
defining a checkerboard configuration for said nuclear
imaging detector, wherein said plurality of blocks of said array
are grouped into a first subset of blocks and a second subset of
blocks;
applying said checkerboard configuration to said array;
acquiring image data from scintillator block detectors
corresponding to one of said first and second subsets in
accordance with said applied checkerboard configuration, for
use in image reconstruction; and
ignoring image data from scintillator block detectors
corresponding to the other of said first and second subsets in
accordance with said applied checkerboard configuration, such
that image data from the ignored subset of scintillator block
detectors is not used in image reconstruction.
Watson
Uchida
Nelson
The References
US 6,329,657 Bl
US 6,774,370 Bl
US 2009/0134334 Al
The Rejections
Dec. 11, 2001
Aug. 10, 2004
May 28, 2009
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 over Uchida in view of Nelson, and claims 3, 5, 8,
and 9 over Uchida in view of Nelson and Watson.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 1 and 6. Those claims require acquiring, for use in image
reconstruction, image data from either a first or second subset of a nuclear
imaging detector's plurality of blocks populated with scintillator block
detectors and grouped into the first and second subset in a checkerboard
configuration, and ignoring image data from scintillator block detectors
2
Appeal 2017-011540
Application 14/485,916
corresponding to the other of the first or second subset such that image data
from the ignored subset of scintillator block detectors is not used in image
reconstruction.
Uchida discloses an imaging device having a two-dimensional
arrangement of scintillator array (11 )-containing radiation detectors (10)
disposed alternately and separated from each other in a checkerboard
configuration, each detector (10) facing and being spaced apart from a
radiation detector (20) in a corresponding two-dimensional arrangement of
scintillator array (21 )-containing radiation detectors (20) ( col. 4, 11. 8-11,
23-27; col. 4, 1. 56-col. 5, 1. 22; col. 13, 11. 31-34; Figs. 1, 7A). Between
the opposing two-dimensional arrangements of radiation detectors (10, 20) is
a measurement surface (S) whereon a subject is positioned during imaging
(col. 6, 11.59---65; Fig. 2). Uchida's object is "to provide a positron imaging
device wherein the range of the field of view is efficiently expanded, while
the constitution of the device is simplified and the costs are reduced" ( col. 2,
11. 33-36).
Nelson discloses an edge-on scintillator detector array and teaches
that edge-on scintillator detector arrays are alternatives to face-on scintillator
detectors for x-ray and gamma ray radiography (i1i16, 9). Nelson's
"invention provides a method of providing electronic internal collimation by
selectively ignoring specific patterns of detector elements either by not
reading them or by reading them and not including their data during image
reconstruction" (i-f 41 ). "In one aspect, specific detector elements such as
vertical strips or columns of pixels can be ignored, either by not reading
them or by reading them and not including their data during image
reconstruction" (i-f 150), and "[i]n one aspect, selective patterns of ignored
3
Appeal 2017-011540
Application 14/485,916
vertical strips or columns of pixels are arranged to act as buffers between
sets of active vertical strips or columns of pixels, providing internal
collimation" (id.).
The Examiner finds (Ans. 16):
Uchida merely differs from the claimed invention in that
instead of "ignoring image data" from neighboring "scintillator
block detectors" in a "checkerboard arrangement", the
"scintillator block detectors" are spaced apart to leave empty
space between the detectors. In a related field of endeavor,
Nelson discloses a nuclear imaging detector capable of positron
emission tomography (PET) using scintillator block detectors
which can be ignored, either by not reading them or by reading
them and not including their data in image reconstruction. The
combination of the Uchida and Nelson discloses the claimed
invention, since it would result in obtaining the benefit of an
expanded field of view by reading out fewer detector elements
spaced apart from one another, according to Uchida, while
being able to obtain the expanded field of view pattern in a fully
populated two-dimensional detector array by selectively
ignoring detector elements which could act as buffers between
active detector elements and provide electronic collimation,
according to Nelson . ...
The Examiner concludes (Final Act. 8-9):
In view of the ability to use a checkerboard arrangement
of detector elements to reduce the number of detectors used
while maintaining an increased field of view as is disclosed in
Uchida et al. at Column 2, Lines 30-36; Column 3,
Lines 10-24; Column 7, Lines 23-38; and Column 10,
Lines 1-54 and in view of the ability to ignore detector
elements to create buffers between active detector elements and
provide internal collimation as is disclosed in Nelson at
Paragraphs 41 and 150-155, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
combine the teachings of Nelson with the teachings of
Uchida et al. to obtain a two dimensional array of detectors
4
Appeal 2017-011540
Application 14/485,916
that can be turned into a checkerboard configuration by
ignoring alternating detector elements to maintain an increased
field of view while reducing the processing cost of the full array
of detectors through internal collimation.
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 Uchida's
imaging device, which appears to be a face-on device, and Nelson's edge-on
imaging device which, Nelson states, is an alternative to a face-on
device (i-f 9), and establish that regardless of those differences, Nelson would
have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that Nelson's disclosure of
ignoring vertical strips or columns of pixels arranged to act as buffers
between sets of active vertical strips or columns or pixels to provide internal
collimation in the edge-on imaging device (i-f 150) would be applicable to
Uchida's imaging device such that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had an apparent reason to place detectors in the spaces between
Uchida's detectors (10, 20) and to ignore the data from either the
newly-placed detectors or Uchida's detectors (10, 20).
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner's rejections are based
upon impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant's disclosure. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
5
Appeal 2017-011540
Application 14/485,916
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 over
Uchida in view of Nelson, and claims 3, 5, 8, and 9 over Uchida in view of
Nelson and Watson are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6