10885634 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

Ex Parte Okamura et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 12, 2012

10885634 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/885,634 07/08/2004 Shoichi Okamura SUT-0240 9826 74384 7590 06/13/2012 Cheng Law Group, PLLC 1100 17th Street, N.W. Suite 503 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER TANINGCO, ALEXANDER H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte SHOICHI OKAMURA, KEIICHI FUJII, SUSUMU ADACHI, SHINYA HIRASAWA, TOSHINORI YOSHIMUTA, KOICHI TANABE, SHIGEYA ASAI, and AKIHIRO NISHIMURA ________________ Appeal 2010-003959 Application 10/885,634 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 1-26, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2010-003959 Application 10/885,634 2 The Invention The Appellants claim a method and apparatus for processing detected radiation signals generated by irradiating an object under examination. Claim 10 is illustrative: 10 A radiation detection signal processing method for taking, at predetermined sampling time intervals, radiation detection signals generated by irradiating an object under examination, and performing a signal processing to obtain radiographic images based on the radiation detection signals outputted at the predetermined sampling time intervals, said method comprising the steps of: removing lag-behind parts from the radiation detection signals by a recursive computation, on an assumption that a lag-behind part included in each of said radiation detection signals taken at the predetermined sampling time intervals is due to an impulse response formed of a plurality of exponential functions with different attenuation time constants; determining said impulse response based on a plurality of doses of radiation including at least a first dose of radiation and at least a second dose of radiation being different from the first dose of radiation; and obtaining a corrected radiation detection signal by removing the lag- behind part based on said impulse response corresponding to each one of said at least first dose of radiation and at least said second dose of radiation. The References Hsieh US 5,249,123 Sep. 28, 1993 Toki US 5,612,985 Mar. 18, 1997 Schulz US 5,923,722 Jul. 13, 1999 Sakaguchi US 6,222,906 B1 Apr. 24, 2001 Jaffray US 2003/0007601 A1 Jan. 9, 2003 Granfors US 2003/0023539 A1 Dec. 4, 2003 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1- 3, 5, 7-12, 20, and 23 over Hsieh in view of Schulz, claims 4, 6, 13-15, 17, and 19 over Hsieh in view of Schulz and Granfors, claims 16 and 18 over Appeal 2010-003959 Application 10/885,634 3 Hsieh in view of Schulz, Granfors and Jaffray, claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 over Hsieh in view of Schulz and Toki, and claim 26 over Hsieh in view of Schulz and Sakaguchi. OPINION We affirm the rejections. The Appellants argue only the independent claims (1 and 10) (Br. 7- 10). Although additional references are applied to some of the independent claims, the Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of those claims (Br. 10). We therefore limit our discussion to the argued limitations in the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007). The Appellants argue that “the ‘afterglow’ of Hsieh (U.S. Patent No. 5,249,123) and the ‘lag’ of the present invention are entirely different in meaning” (Br. 7). Hsieh’s afterglow, the Appellants argue, ceases in a very short time of about 0.01 millisecond and is not a problem in the Appellants’ invention wherein the minimum photographing interval is about 1/30 second (Br. 8). The Appellants do not provide evidentiary support for that argument. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Moreover, the argument is inconsistent with the Appellants’ statement that “the lag-behind part appears as an after-image” (Spec. 2:19-20) and Hsieh’s disclosure of time constants between 1 and 300 ms and indication that effects still are significant after 300 ms (col. 6, ll. 33-64). Appeal 2010-003959 Application 10/885,634 4 The Appellants argue that “the ‘lag’ addressed by the present invention refers to a phenomenon that, as also recited in claim 1, all electric charges converted from radiation are not read, but part of the charges remain unread” (Br. 8). The Appellants’ claim 1 does not require the unread charges argued by the Appellants. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Moreover, the argument is not supported by the Appellants’ Specification which discloses that lag-behind parts create after-images (Spec. 2:19-20). Those after-images appear to be the same as Hsieh’s afterglow. The Appellants argue that “Hsieh et al. and the present invention are different in the algorithm of recursive computation” (Br. 9). The Examiner finds that Hsieh modified by Schulz provides the Appellants’ algorithm (Ans. 4-5) and the Appellants do not challenge that finding. Hence, we accept that finding as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). The Appellants argue that “Schulz et al. does not disclose or suggest determination of (a parameter such as a time constant that determines a profile of) the impulse response based on a plurality of doses of radiation as in the present invention” (Br. 9)1 and that Schulz’s “time constant of a lag which attenuates exponentially is regarded as being always constant” (Br. 10). The Examiner relies upon Hsieh for a determination of an impulse response for components with different time constants (col. 2, ll. 43-46) and 1 The Appellants’ argument that the impulse response is determined “beforehand” (Br. 10) improperly relies upon a limitation which is not in the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Appeal 2010-003959 Application 10/885,634 5 Schulz for the use of a plurality of radiation doses (col. 2, ll. 19-29) (Ans. 3- 4), and the Appellants have not shown reversible error in that combination. The Appellants argue that Schulz’s Sn signal does not come from the low-dose pulse and Schulz’s Sn-1 and Sn+1 signals do not come from the high-dose pulse (Br. 10). That argument is correct2 but unavailing to the Appellants because the Appellants have not established that it shows reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection Accordingly, we sustain the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 20, and 23 over Hsieh in view of Schulz, claims 4, 6, 13-15, 17, and 19 over Hsieh in view of Schulz and Granfors, claims 16 and 18 over Hsieh in view of Schulz, Granfors, and Jaffray, claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 over Hsieh in view of Schulz and Toki, and claim 26 over Hsieh in view of Schulz and Sakaguchi 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 sld 2 Schulz’s Sn signal comes from the high-dose (bright image) exposure and Schulz’s Sn-1 and Sn+1 signals come from the low-dose (dark image) exposure (col. 3, ll. 16-29).