KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 7, 2021

2020004643 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/209,842 07/14/2016 Thomas FRACH 2007P00683US01 7096
24737 7590 05/07/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS FRACH and ANDREAS THON
____________

Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JENNIFER R. GUPTA, SHELDON M. McGEE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips, N.V. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed March 11, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 1.
2 Final Office Action entered October 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”), 1.
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a virtual pixel array for a diagnostic imaging system
(independent claim 1), a method of calculating a time stamp for a virtual
pixel (independent claim 5), and a detector array for a diagnostic imaging
device (independent claim 9). Appeal Br. 3–5. Claim 1 illustrates the
subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A virtual pixel array for a diagnostic imaging system,
including:
a virtual pixel comprising at least one scintillator crystal;
a plurality of photodetectors optically and directly
coupled to the at least one scintillator crystal, which generate
output signals in response to scintillations in the crystal,
wherein the plurality of photodetectors includes 4
photodetectors arranged in a 2x2 array; and
a virtualizer that processes the output signals associated
with a gamma ray hit on the scintillator crystal as detected by
the plurality of photodetectors and calculates a time stamp for
the gamma ray hit, wherein the calculated timestamp represents
an earliest timestamp associated with the gamma ray hit,
independent of the energy of the hit;
a plurality of scintillator crystals, including the at least
one scintillator crystal, arranged in a rectangular grid;
a plurality of the 2x2 arrays of photodetectors optically
and directly coupled to the scintillator crystals in an offset
relationship such that within a given in each 2x2 array, at least
one of the scintillator crystals is optically and directly coupled
to only one photodetector, one of the scintillator crystals is
optically and directly coupled to four of the photodetectors, and
at least two of the scintillator crystals are optically and directly
coupled to two of the photodetectors;
wherein the scintillator crystals have a pitch of
approximately one half a pitch of the photodetectors to which
they are directly coupled.

Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Similar to claim 1,
independent claim 5 requires the recited method to include optically and
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

3
directly coupling, in an offset relationship, a plurality of 2x2 arrays of
photodetectors to a plurality of scintillator crystals arranged in a rectangular
grid, and independent claim 9 requires the recited detector array to include a
plurality of scintillator crystals arranged in an array and optically and
directly coupled, in an offset relationship, to a plurality of photodetectors
arranged in an array.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered April 7, 2020 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Moisan3 in view of Wong I,4 Wong II,5 and Shibuya;6
II. Claims 9–14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moisan in view of Wong I, and Shibuya; and
III. Claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moisan in view of Wong I, Shibuya, and Tornai.7
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of

3 Moisan et al., US 6,087,663 B2, issued July 11, 2000.
4 Wong, US 5,319,204 A, issued June 7, 1994 (“Wong I”).
5 Wong et al., US 2003/0226972 A1, published December 11, 2003 (“Wong
II”).
6 Shibuya et al., WO 2008/023451 A1, published February 28, 2008.
7 Tornai et al., Discrete Scintillator Coupled Mercuric Iodide Photodetector
Arrays for Breast Imaging, 44 IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 3,
1127–1133 (1997).
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

4
claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for reasons set forth in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs, and below.
Rejection I
We first address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moisan in view of Wong I, Wong II,
and Shibuya. We need address independent claims 1 and 5 only, which both
require the recited plurality of arrays of photodetectors to be optically and
directly coupled in an offset relationship to a plurality of scintillator crystals
arranged in a rectangular grid.
The Examiner finds that Figure 3(a) of Moisan discloses
photodetectors optically and directly coupled to scintillator crystals in an
offset relationship. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5–6. Figure 3(a) of Moisan is
reproduced below:

Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

5
Figure 3(a) of Moisan illustrates “a detector made of a plurality of
segmented crystal light guides . . . each being coupled to an individual
compact 10 light sensing device.” Moisan col. 7, ll. 8–11.
On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Moisan discloses or would have
suggested a plurality of scintillator crystals arranged in a rectangular grid,
and a plurality of arrays of photodetectors optically and directly coupled to
the scintillator crystals in an offset relationship, as required by claims 1 and
5, for reasons expressed by Appellant (Appeal Br. 8–9), and discussed
below.
Figure 3(a) of Moisan illustrates detector 20 including a plurality of
individual crystal light guides (scintillator crystals) that “are closely packed
and arrayed in a pattern having known X and Y locations (coordinates).”
Moisan col. 12, ll. 8–11. Moisan discloses that detector 20 of Figure 3(a)
also includes a “plurality of photo diodes . . . integrated onto a single matrix,
whose X and Y pattern and transverse area closely match that of the [crystal
light guide] array.” Moisan, col. 12, ll. 18–21 (emphasis added). Moisan
explains that light transmitting end 5 of each crystal light guide is “coupled
to an individual solid state light sensing device 21,” resulting in a one-to-one
correspondence between each crystal light guide and a corresponding
photodiode. Moisan col. 12, ll. 13–15, 44–47.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from these
disclosures in Moisan that each crystal light guide (scintillator crystal) in
detector 20 illustrated in Moisan’s Figure 3(a) is coupled to a single,
corresponding photodiode (“one-to-one correspondence”), and each crystal
light guide (scintillator crystal) and corresponding photodiode have
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

6
substantially the same transverse area (“closely match[ing]” transverse
areas). Contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, such an arrangement does not
constitute a plurality of scintillator crystals arranged in a rectangular grid
coupled in an “offset relationship” to a plurality of arrays of photodetectors
as required by claims 1 and 5, but, rather, describes a matching or
corresponding arrangement or relationship between individual crystal light
guides and corresponding photodiodes.8
Although the array of crystal light guides (scintillator crystals) shown
in Moisan’s Figure 3(a) may appear to be more compact than the underlying
array of photodiodes, Figure 3(a) must be interpreted in light of the
associated description of the figure provided in Moisan’s disclosure, which
describes a matching or corresponding relationship between individual
crystal light guides and corresponding photodiodes, rather than an offset
relationship, as discussed above. In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (C.C.P.A.
1954) (“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent
are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention
claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied
upon to endow the claims with patentability.”); cf. Hockerson-Halberstadt,
Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc. 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(“patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and

8 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we encourage
Appellant and the Examiner to consider whether Figure 3(c) of Moisan
illustrates crystal guides arranged in a rectangular grid coupled in an offset
relationship to an array of photodiodes, and whether embodiments of the
invention disclosed in Wong I, particularly that of Figure 7, teach direct
coupling in an offset arrangement of photodetectors and a plurality of arrays
of scintillation crystals.
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

7
may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue.”).
In response to Appellant’s argument that Moisan does not disclose
scintillator crystals directly coupled to a plurality of photodetector arrays in
an offset relationship as recited in claims 1 and 5 (Appeal Br. 8–10), the
Examiner finds that Moisan discloses that the photodiodes in Moisan’s
detector can be arranged in configurations that differ from the arrangement
illustrated in Figure 3(a). Ans. 5–6 (citing Moisan col. 12, ll.).
As Appellant argues, however, Moisan teaches use of such an
alternative photodiode arrangement only in combination with an “optical
fiber” that connects each crystal light guide to a photodiode. Appeal Br. 8–
9. In particular, Moisan states that “with such an optical fiber coupling of
each light guide to a photodiode matrix, there is no need for that photodiode
matrix to be in the same X-Y arrangement as that of the light guides.”
Moisan col. 12, ll. 27–30 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood from this disclosure that without inclusion of an
optical fiber, the photodiode would need to be in the same X-Y arrangement
as that of the crystal light guides. The ordinary artisan would have further
understood that any deviation, or “offset,” from such a congruent pattern
would require use of an optical fiber to connect each crystal light guide to a
photodiode, contrary to the requirement in claims 1 and 5 of directly
coupling a plurality of arrays of photodetectors and a plurality of scintillator
crystals arranged in a rectangular grid.
On the record before us, therefore, the Examiner does not establish
that the relied-upon disclosures of Moisan teach or would have suggested a
plurality of arrays of photodetectors optically and directly coupled to a
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

8
plurality scintillator crystals in an offset relationship, as required by claims 1
and 5. Because the Examiner does not rely on the additional applied prior
art references for any disclosure that remedies the deficiencies of the
Examiner’s reliance on Moisan, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 and 5, and claims 2–4 and 6–8, which each depend from either
claim 1 or claim 5.
Rejections II and III
We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moisan in view of Wong I, and
Shibuya (Rejection II) and rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Moisan in view of Wong I, Shibuya, and
Tornai (Rejection III). We do not sustain these rejections because the
Examiner’s reliance on Moisan in the rejection of independent claim 9
suffers from the same deficiencies as the Examiner’s reliance on Moisan in
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 5 (discussed above), and the
Examiner does not rely on the additional applied prior art references for any
disclosure that remedies the deficiencies of the Examiner’s reliance on
Moisan. Final Act. 15–18.
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8 103(a) Moisan, Wong
I, Wong II,
Shibuya
1–8
9–14, 16 103(a) Moisan, Wong
I, Shibuya
9–14, 16
Appeal 2020-004643
Application 15/209,842

9
Claims
Rejected

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15, 17 103(a) Moisan, Wong
I, Shibuya,
Tornai
15,17
Overall
Outcome
1–17

REVERSED