Ex Parte Spartiotis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2013

11226877 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte KONSTANTINOS SPARTIOTIS and
TUOMAS PANTSAR
____________________

Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-30, 33-40, and 42-44. Claims 31, 32 and 41 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is generally related to the field of
semiconductor imaging systems for imaging x-ray and gamma ray radiant
energy. More specifically, the invention is directed to a high frame rate,
high energy charge-integrating imaging devices utilizing Cd-Te or Cd-Zn-Te
based detector substrates in combination with CMOS readout substrates.
Additionally, the invention is directed to a process for calibrating such high
energy radiation imaging systems. (Spec. 1).
Independent claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An x-ray imaging device (28), comprising:

a camera radiation detector substrate comprised of
an array of pixels,

each pixel collecting electrical charges generated
responsive to absorption of radiation energy,

the collected electrical charges defining an uncorrected
image pixel value of the corresponding pixel;

an output for producing multiple different image
frames (44), each frame comprising an array (45) of the
uncorrected image pixel values from the detector substrate;

a correction part (20, 49, 22, 24) for individually
applying an individualized, pixel-specific calibration correction
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

3
function to each of the uncorrected image pixel values of the
output, including offset correction, for correcting the
uncorrected image pixel values from each frame of the different
image frames to provide a normalized image data to a display
for presenting an x-ray image,

the calibration correction function being specific to each
of the uncorrected image pixel values of the output of each
frame; and

a processor (24) for calculating the individualized
specific correction function for each of the uncorrected image
pixel values of each frame, the specific calibration correction
for each image pixel value (47) of said normalized image data
being derived from a plurality of corrected individual single
frame image pixel values (36) of said multiple different frames
corrected by said specific correction functions.

21. An x-ray imaging device (28), comprising:

an output providing an array of pixels values for
producing multiple different individual image frames (44),

each said pixel value generated responsive to
absorption of impinging high energy x-ray gamma ray
radiation and having a first bit depth,

each individual frame of said multiple individual
frames comprising the array (45) of the pixel values with
the first bit depth, and

a processor (24) for calculating final image pixel
values (47) of a second bit depth from the pixel values of
the first bit depth of the different individual frames,

wherein the second bit depth of the final image
pixel values (47) is greater than the first bit depth of the
pixel values from the individual frames to provide
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

4
relatively increased resolution of the image data for
presenting an x-ray image from the x-ray imaging device.

REFERENCES
Gordon US 4,135,247 Jan. 16, 1979
Conrads US 6,246,746 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Berliner US 6,278,765 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Endo US Pat. App. No. 2003/0038242 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
Dagan US Pat. App. No. 2004/0094720 A1 May 20, 2004
Rosner US Pat. App. No. 2004/0101091 A1 May 27, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-18, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dagan and Gordon.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dagan, Gordon, and Endo.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dagan, Gordon, and Conrads.
Claims 21-30, 33, 34, and 36-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dagan and Berliner.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dagan, Berliner, and Endo.
Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dagan, Berliner, and Conrads.
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

5
Claims 43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dagan, Gordon, and Rosner.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The Examiner maintains that claims 33 and 34 are directly or
indirectly dependent on a canceled base claim. Thus, we find one of skill in
the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims as
the skilled artisan would not have been reasonably apprised of claim scope
and would not be clear what other limitations might apply to the claims.
Therefore, the claim is incomplete and fails to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the
invention (MPEP § 608.01(n)). (Ans. 3). Appellants do not address this
ground of rejection in the Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 13-14). Therefore, we
pro forma affirm the rejection.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or a reply brief
filed pursuant to [37 C.F.R.] § 41.41 will be refused consideration by the
Board, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us
nor at issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a decision
not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not presented to the
Board.")

Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

6
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 1-20 and 42-44
With respect to claims 1-20 and 42-44, the Examiner applies various
rejections based upon the combination of Dagan and Gordon and further in
view of Endo, Conrads, or Rosner.
With respect to independent claim 1, which is illustrative for the
above group, Appellants contend:
What the prior art does not teach is the recited correction part i)
individually applying an individualized, pixel-specific
calibration correction function to each of the uncorrected image
pixel values of the output, including offset correction, for
correcting the uncorrected image pixel values from each frame
of the different image frames to provide a normalized image
data to a display for presenting an x-ray image, ii) the
calibration correction function being specific to each of the
uncorrected image pixel values of the output of each frame, and
iii) the specific calibration correction for each image pixel value
of said normalized image data being derived from a plurality of
corrected individual single frame image pixel values of said
multiple different frames corrected by said specific correction
functions.

(App. Br. 15-16).
The Examiner's general proposition is that the Dagan reference
expressly teaches that "other methods of calibration are also possible" and
"one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
reasonably interpret the unspecified calibration method of Dagan et al. as
any one of the known conventional calibration methods that would not
require further description." (Ans. 23). The Examiner maintains that the
Gordon reference teaches a method of calibration which should account for
differences in sensitivity among individual detectors of a detector array.
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

7
(Ans. 23). The Examiner further relies upon the proposition that the known
conventional calibration method of Gordon is a mere substitution of one
element for another known element in the field and therefore the
combination would yield predictable results. (Id.).
Appellants contend that:
What Dagan discloses is a pre-operational calibration that is an
average charge/photon for specific calibration geometry. In
Dagan, this relationship is generated from a prior calibration
based on a statistical analysis of charge/photon over an
expected range of photon energies, which relationship is stored
in a processor prior to beginning the capturing step, and relates
the number of charges generated per incident photon and is
typically a look-up table or a function.

Dagan Figure 7A shows that in step 204, charge is collected on
each pixel, in step 206 the charge is read out pixel-by-pixel, and
in step 208 the number of photons is determined (pixel-by-
pixel) presumably based on the charge/photon calibration. From
this charge readout, Dagan develops a correction relationship
that provides the same correction factor to each pixel, e.g., by
look-up table. The calibration correction function is not specific
to each uncorrected image pixel value. The look-up
table/relationship is a generalized correction that is applied to
each and every pixel. The same correction relationship
(function) is applied to each pixel. In Dagan, there is no
calibration function individualized and specific to each pixel.

Thus, the Examiner's factual finding is incorrect in that Dagan
does not disclose that "the calibration correction function being
specific to each of the uncorrected image pixel values of the
output of each frame".

(App. Br. 18-20). We agree with Appellants and note that paragraph [0108]
of the Dagan reference states "the calibration is carried out prior to the
application of the system. This calibration is effected in a manner very
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

8
similar to the statistical analysis discussed above which was based on Eq. 1.
Other methods of calibration are also possible." From our review of the
cited portions of the Dagan reference and the lengthy discussion and tables
in the Examiner's Answer, we find that the Examiner's line of reasoning is
based upon a flawed piecemeal analysis of the claim language.
As discussed above, the Dagan reference clearly states that the
calibration is preformed prior to application of the system, but the language
of independent claim 1 requires that the "calibration correction function
being specific to each of the uncorrected image pixel values of the output of
each frame" and "the specific calibration correction for each image pixel
value (47) of said normalized image data being derived from a plurality of
corrected individual single frame image pixel values (36) of said multiple
different frames corrected by said specific correction functions." We find
the teachings and suggestions of the Dagan reference do not support the
Examiner's findings. Additionally, the Examiner's identification of the
unspecified calibration method of the Dagan reference (Ans. 23) and
reliance upon the calibration method of the Gordon reference does not
remedy the above-noted deficiency.
Appellants further contend that "in both Dagan and Gordon the
calibration functions are based on tests done prior to any processing. In both
Dagan and Gordon the calibration functions are not derived from plural
corrected individual single frame image pixel values of multiple different
frames corrected by the specific correction functions." (App. Br. 23-24,
emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellants that the Gordon reference
discloses "[t]he offset correction data table and the calibration correction
data table are determined by the tomographic system prior to performing a
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

9
tomographic scan of a body to be examined." (Col. 14, ll. 34-37). Again,
the Examiner's reliance upon a calibration function determined prior to
application of the system falls short of teaching and fairly suggesting the
invention as recited in independent claim 1. Furthermore, while we agree
with the Examiner's identification of the substitution as predictable, the
relied upon combination falls short of teaching and fairly suggesting the
invention as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 based upon the combination of the
Dagan reference and the Gordon reference. Since each of the dependent
claims 2-14, 16-18, and 42 contain the same limitations, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection thereof.
Since each of the dependent claims 15, 19, 20, 43, and 44 contain the
same limitations as independent claim 1 and the Examiner has not identified
how the additional prior art references (Endo, Conrads, Rosner) remedy the
noted deficiency, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 15,
19, 20, 43, and 44.
Claims 21-30 and 33-40
With respect to independent claim 21, Appellants argue the rejection
of claims 21-30, 33, 34, and 36-38, as a single group. (App. Br. 36-41). We
select independent claim 21 as the representative claim for the group and
address Appellants' arguments thereto.
The Examiner relies upon the Dagan reference and the Berliner
reference in the obviousness rejection. We note that independent claim 21 is
of a different scope than independent claim 1. The Examiner further
explains the teachings and suggestions of the Berliner reference regarding
"bit depth." (Ans. 34-36). The Examiner explains that the processing in the
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

10
Berliner reference identifies greater bit depth than the initial pixel level/bit
depth.
Appellants contend that there is a fundamental problem with the
Examiner's rejection. (App. Br. 38). Appellants contend that the Berliner
reference is very confusing and the Examiner has not carefully sorted out
what is actually disclosed. (App. Br. 38). Appellants essentially repeat the
Examiner's analysis and maintain that in the Berliner reference the final
pixel value is the same bit depth as the initial pixel level. (App. Br. 39).
We disagree with Appellants' contention and find that the Examiner
has provided an analysis to show that pixel depth is greater during the
processing relative to the initial processing. While Appellants contend that
the ultimate output pixel level is the same, Appellants' claimed invention
does not specifically claim how the processing is done to distinguish the
claimed invention. Nor does the language of independent claim 21 recite
what the claimed "final image pixel values (47) of a second bit depth from
the pixel values of the first bit depth of the different individual frames" must
be. The mere label "final pixel values" does not have to be an output of the
device and may be a final value of some portion of the data processing.
Therefore, Appellants' argument does not show error in the Examiner's
showing of obviousness of representative independent claim 21.
Additionally, Appellants have not identified any express definitions
with which to distinguish the claimed invention. Appellants merely identify
a general benefit discussed at page 8 of the Specification, but we find no
such limitations recited in the device of independent claim 21 to distinguish
the processor of the claim over the processor of the combination of the
Dagan reference and the Berliner reference. Therefore, we sustain the
Appeal 2010-010755
Application 11/226,877

11
rejection of representative independent claim 21, and claims 22-30, 33, 34,
and 36-38 grouped therewith.
With respect to the rejections of claims 35, 39, and, 40, Appellants
rely on the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 21. (App.
Br. 40-41). Therefore, we group these claims as falling with representative
claim 21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 33 and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 and 42-44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21-30 and 33-40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1-20 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. The
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-30 and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh