Desaute, Pascal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14362687 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/362,687 06/04/2014 Pascal Desaute 36703-6 1354
120421 7590 11/04/2019
Green Patent Law
7 Eldredge Place
Rye, NY 10580
EXAMINER
MIDKIFF, ANASTASIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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):
elane@greenpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PASCAL DESAUTE, IRÈNE DORION, and NICOLAS DUMAY
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–10.3
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: amended
Specification filed February 27, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated
November 16, 2017 (“Final”); Appeal Brief filed June 5, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer dated September 20, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant, also identified as the real party in interest,
is Smiths Heimann SAS. See Appeal Br. 3.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to equipment and a method for the
radiography of a load. Title of the Invention. The equipment and method
may be used, for example, in airports to inspect passengers’ luggage or to
monitor the content of containers or truck trailers. Id. at 1:20–22. Figure 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the inventive radiography equipment. Id. at
6:2.

Figure 1, above, illustrates a side and sectional view of radiography
equipment 1. Spec. 5:21–22. Radiography equipment 1, designed for the
radiography of load 11, includes x-ray source 2, collimator 4, reference
block 6, receiving sensors 8, and control and signal processing device 10. Id.
at 6:5–6. X-ray source 2 comprises a device for producing and accelerating
electron beam 12, and target 14 for the electron beam so as to generate
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

3
divergent x-ray pulse 16 from focal point F. Id. at 6:8–10. Collimator 4
generates incident x-ray beam 22 that irradiates entire load 11. Id. at 6:34–
35, 7:10–11. Reference block 6, comprising a plurality of intermediate x-ray
sensors 28, is inserted between collimator 4 and load 11 so as to be passed
through by at least part of incident beam 22. Id. at 7:12–13, 18. Each
intermediate sensor 28 is capable of being irradiated by an individual
angular sector of incident beam 22 and of creating a reference signal that is
representative of the intensity of incident beam 22 in the individual angular
sector in question. Id. at 8:20–22. Each receiving sensor 8 is capable of
receiving an individual angular sector of beam 22 after it has successively
passed through reference block 6 followed by intermediate space 36,
optionally occupied by load 11. Id. at 9:18–20.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. Equipment for the radiography of a load, the equipment
and the load being designed to move relative to one another
during the detection, the radiography equipment comprising:
a source for emitting pulses of divergent X-rays;
a collimator for the source for delimiting an incident X-
ray beam designed to irradiate a section of the load, the
successive X-ray pulses being capable of irradiating successive
sections of the load; and
sensors for receiving X-rays situated in the extension of
the incident beam to receive the X-rays after they have passed
through the load and generate raw image signals designed to be
converted into a radiographic image portion corresponding to
said section;
wherein it further includes a reference block including
intermediate X-ray sensors which are to be located each, at least
partially, in the incident beam, between the source and the load,
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

4
the intermediate sensors being designed to be irradiated by at
least two separate angular sectors of the incident beam and to
provide independent reference signals corresponding to each
angular sector to be used in the conversion of the raw image
signals into a portion of the radiographic image.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Uyama (US 4,907,157, issued March 6, 1990). Final Act. 2.
APPLIED PRIOR ART
Uyama “relates to a tomographic apparatus suitable for
nondestructively inspecting industrial manufactures or the materials thereof,
and particularly to a CT apparatus provided with independent movable
radiation generating/sensing systems.” Uyama 1:8–12. Uyama Figure 1 is
reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

5
Figure 1, above, illustrates an upper-side view of the mechanical part
of Uyama’s tomographic apparatus. Uyama 3:40–41. Radiation generator
system 20 faces radiation sensor system 40 and object 50 is located
therebetween. Id. at 3:42–45. “[S]canner frame 34 is movably mounted on
guide rails 21a and 21b[, and] . . . is provided with a radiation generator 35
which may be formed of an X-ray tube or the like.” Id. at 4:16–19.
“Radiation controller 53 governs the operation of radiation generator 35 so
that generator 35 provides the X-ray radiations continuously or
intermittently.” Id. at 5:4–6. Collimator plate 37 is positioned in front of
radiation generator 35’s radiating outlet, and reference detector 36, which
measures radiation intensity, is positioned therebetween. Id. at 4:23–25.
“When plural pencil beams 39* are utilized to obtain a CT image of object
50, driver 38 lifts collimator plate 37 up so that plate 37 is inserted in the
radiation path of fan beams 39 generated from radiation generator 35.” Id. at
4:28–32. “When the fan beam radiation is used for the inspection, driver 38
lowers collimator plate 37 so that plate 37 is removed from the radiation
path.” Id. at 4:32–34. “Radiation sensor 43 is formed of a plurality of sensor
elements, each of which electrically converts the intensity of sensed
radiation into radiation absorption data.” Id. at 4:41–44.
OPINION
The Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Uyama discloses a reference block including intermediate X-ray sensors
that are located in the incident X-ray beam, as required by each of
independent claims 1 and 8. See Appeal Br. 10–12. The Appellant
acknowledges that in column 4, lines 23–25, Uyama discloses that “the
reference block is located in front of the source,” but contends that Uyama
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

6
“does not disclose intermediate X-ray sensors which are to be located each,
at least partially, in the incident beam[, because] ‘[i]n front’ does not imply
that the sensors are in the incident beam.” Appeal Br. 11. The Appellant
argues that, contary to the Examiner’s contention, Uyama suggests that
“reference block 36 is located close to the beam, but beside and not in the
path of the incident beam.” Id. at 12 (arguing that Uyama’s description in
column 8, lines 65–68, of a sensor element whose location is closest to the
beam path “would not make sense if the reference block was located at least
partially in the beam”).
The Examiner contends that the Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
Ans. 2–3. The Examiner asserts that the language of claims 1 and 8
“suggests that the X-ray beam from the source creates a beam that is incident
on the collimator, which delimits the beam incident on the collimator from
the source, and wherein the collimator then passes the delimited beam on to
the load.” Id. The Examiner argues that Uyama’s reference sensors 36 are in
the path of “the ‘incident beam’ to the collimator.” Id. at 3 (emphasis
added).
The respective positions of the Appellant and the Examiner raise an
issue as to the scope and meaning of the claim term “incident X-ray beam”
(claims 1, 8). Specifically, the Examiner contends that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “incident X-ray beam,” as used in
claims 1 and 8, encompasses a beam exiting the source and incident on the
collimator. The Appellant contends that the term “incident X-ray beam”
should be interpreted as the beam created by the collimator and incident on
the load.
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

7
Claim 8 recites “a) emitting a pulse of divergent X-rays from a source,
. . . b) from the X-ray pulse, forming an incident X-ray beam using a
collimator,” and “a step d) in which a measurement is done of the X-ray
doses received by at least two intermediate sensors of a reference block
situated in the incident beam so as to be passed through by at least two
separate angular sectors of the incident beam delimited in step b).” Appeal
Br. 16–17 (Claims Appendix). It is clear from the phrase “forming an
incident X-ray beam using a collimator” (claim 8 (emphasis added)) that the
reference block must be situated in the path of a beam created by the
collimator. Therefore, we agree with the Appellant that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “incident X-ray beam,” as used in claim
8, is the beam created by the collimator and incident on the load.
Claim 1 recites “a collimator for the source [of divergent X-rays] for
delimiting an incident X-ray beam designed to irradiate a section of the
load” and “a reference block including intermediate X-ray sensors which are
to be located each, at least partially, in the incident beam between the source
and the load, the intermediate sensors being designed to be irradiated by at
least two separate angular sectors of the incident beam.” See claim 1 supra
pp. 3–4. We determine the meaning of “incident X-ray beam,” as used in
claim 1,—e.g., “an incident X-ray beam designed to irradiate a section of the
load”—is not clear from the claim language itself. Therefore, we turn to the
written description to ascertain the broadest reasonable interpretation.
With reference to Figure 1, the Specification discloses that
collimator 4 extends at the output of the x-ray source 2
substantially in direction OY'. It includes a wall 18 substantially
opaque to X-rays delimiting a slot 20 oriented in plane XOY in
direction OY'. Thus, the collimator 4 is capable of generating
Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

8
an incident x-ray beam 22 essentially comprised in plane XOY,
which is a median plane for the incident beam.
Spec. 6:32–35 (emphasis added). In discussing the Figure 2 embodiment, the
Specification refers to “the opening angle ω of the beam 22 created by the
collimator.” Id. at 7:35 (emphasis added). In describing an implementation
of the inventive equipment and method, the Specification discloses that
“collimator 4 forms an incident beam 22 that irradiates successive sections
of the load 11 carried by the vehicle 40.” Id. at 10:32–33 (emphasis added).
“Upon each x-ray pulse 16, an incident beam 22 with angular expanse ω is
created at the output of the collimator 4 at the slot 20.” Id. at 11:1–2
(emphasis added).
We determine from the above-quoted language in the written
description, as well as the entire Specification disclosure which contains no
description of the incident beam as the beam emanating from the source, that
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
understood that the recitation of an “incident X-ray beam” in claim 1 refers
to the beam created by the collimator that is incident on the load.
The Examiner has not identified a teaching in Uyama of a reference
block located at least partially in the beam created by the collimator as
required by independent claims 1 and 8. But see Uyama 4:23–25 (describing
reference detector 36 as positioned between collimator plate 37 and radiation
generator 35). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Appeal 2019-001184
Application 14/362,687

9
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10 102(b) Uyama 1–10

REVERSED