Ex Parte Arakawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 18, 2010

10714851 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SATOSHI ARAKAWA
_____________

Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: March 18, 2010
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Action rejecting claims 1-9. Dependent claim 10 stands objected to for
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

2
depending on a rejected claim and would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Final Action 8. As explained below, all rejections of
claims 8 and 9 have also been withdrawn, leaving only clams 1-7 for our
consideration.
Oral argument was heard on March 9, 2010.1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention is radiation-image read-out apparatus in which
stimulated emission emitted from a radiation image convertor panel is
detected to read a radiation image carried by the radiation image convertor
panel. Specification 1:5-9.2
Appellant’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.

1 “[A]rguments not presented in the brief or reply brief and made for the
first time at the oral hearing are not normally entitled to consideration.”
MPEP § 1205.02 (8th ed., rev. 7, July 2008) (citing In re Chiddix,
209 USPQ 78 (Comm’r Pat. 1980)).
2 References herein to Appellant’s Specification are to the Application as
filed rather than to corresponding Patent Application Publication
2004/0094731 A1.
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

3

Figure 2 is an enlarged side view showing the stimulating beam
projecting system and the detecting system employed in the radiation image
read-out apparatus shown in Figure 1. Id. at 7:13-15. Stimulating light
beam projecting system 20 projects a stimulating light beam onto a radiation
image convertor panel 10. Id. at 8:8-12. A detecting system 30 detects
stimulated emission emitted from the radiation image convertor panel 10
upon exposure to the stimulating light beam. Id. at 8:12-14.
Figure 3 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

4

Figure 3 shows the relation between the wavelength of the stimulating
light and the intensity of the stimulated emission emitted from the radiation
image convertor panel. Id. at 11:2-5. This figure shows that a change in the
stimulating wavelength from 660 nm (corresponding to the peak emission
value) to 665 nm will result in a reduction of only about 1.0% in the
intensity of the emitted light. Id. at 12:16-18. By our calculation, dividing
this 1.0% intensity change by 5 nm, which is the difference between these
two stimulating wavelengths, yields a ratio of the change of the intensity of
the stimulated emission to the change in the stimulating wavelength of
0.20%/nm. In the range W1 in Figure 3, the ratio of the change of the
intensity of the stimulated emission to the change of the wavelength of the
stimulating light is not larger than 1.0%/nm and not smaller than -1.0%/nm.
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

5
Id. at 12:24-13:1. W2 designates a range in which this ratio is not larger
than 0.5%/nm and not smaller than -0.5%/nm. Id. at 13:5-9.

B. The claims
Claim 1, the sole independent claim before us, reads:
1. A radiation image read-out apparatus which comprises:
a radiation image converter panel,
a stimulating light projecting means which projects
stimulating light onto the radiation image converter panel, and
a detecting means which detects stimulated emission
emitted from the radiation image converter panel upon exposure
to the stimulating light beam and reads out a radiation image
recorded on the radiation image converter panel,
wherein the stimulating light projecting means projects,
onto the radiation image converter panel, stimulating light in a
wavelength range where the rate of change of the intensity of
the stimulated emission to a given change of the wavelength of
the stimulating light is not larger than 1.0%/nm and is not
smaller than -1.0%/nm; and
and wherein the wavelength of the stimulable [i.e.,
stimulating] light fluctuates in a manner that would cause a
change in the intensity of the stimulable [i.e., stimulated]
emission.
Claims App. (Br. 19).
Dependent claim 2 recites values of 0.5%/nm and -0.5%/nm.

C. The references
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

6
The Examiner relies on the following references:3
Nakamura US 4,780,376 Oct. 25, 1988
Bradley US 5,043,991 Aug. 27, 1991
Neyens et al. (“Neyens”) US 5,517,034 May 14, 1996
Read-out of photostimulable latent fluorescent images, Research Disclosure
Journal (Dec. 1989) (“Research Disclosure”)

D. The rejections4
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Nakamura in view of Neyens and Bradley. (Answer 3).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Nakamura in view of Neyens, Bradley, and Research Disclosure. Id. at 7.

THE ISSUE
One issue raised by Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of
claim 1 is whether the Examiner has established any motivation for
combining the reference teachings.

3 Because the availability of the references as prior art against Appellant’s
claims is not at issue, only the issue or publication dates are being provided.

4 The rejections as stated herein differ from those presented in the Final
Action, which were revised at page 2 of the Advisory Action mailed
August 28, 2006, in response to an Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 116
received August 14, 2006. Also, of the grounds stated in the Advisory
Action, the rejections of claims 8 and 9 under the first and second
paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 were withdrawn at page 2 of the Answer.
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

7
Another issue is whether the combined reference teachings satisfy the
recited range of the ratio of the change in stimulated emission intensity to the
change in stimulating wavelength.

ANALYSIS
A. Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding
that Figure 5 of Nakamura shows the recited “radiation image converter
panel,” “stimulating light projecting means,” and “detecting means”
(Answer 4). Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s finding that the
emission characteristic curves shown in Figure 1 of Nakamura and Figure 1
of Neyens each have a peak emission output value corresponding to a
particular stimulating wavelength.
Figure 1 of Nakamura is reproduced below.

Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

8
Figure 1 shows a stimulation spectrum of a CsCl·RbBr:0.001Eu2+
phosphor in accordance with Nakamura’s invention. Nakamura, col. 3, ll.
19-22. Nakamura discloses that various types of lasers, including
semiconductor lasers, which are preferred, can be used as the source of a
single wavelength for stimulating the phosphor. Id. at col. 9, ll. 30-48.
For a teaching of selecting the stimulation wavelength to be equal to
the particular wavelength that maximizes the emission output, the Examiner
(Final Action 6) relies on Neyens. Appellant, after agreeing that “Neyens
discloses that it is preferable to have a stimulable light source set such that
stimulable emission from is maximized” (Br. 14), correctly points out that
Neyens fails to teach or suggest (a) the recited “stimulating light in a
wavelength range where the rate of change of the intensity of the stimulated
emission to a given change of the wavelength of the stimulating light is not
larger than 1.0%/nm and is not smaller than -1.0%/nm” or (b) the recited
“wherein the wavelength of the stimulable [i.e., stimulating] light fluctuates
in a manner that would cause a change in the intensity of the stimulable [i.e.,
stimulated] emission.” (Claim 1.) The Examiner relies on Bradley to show
that both of these limitations inherently will be satisfied when Nakamura is
modified in view of Neyens so as to employ a semiconductor laser that
provides a stimulating wavelength that corresponds to the peak emission
output value (Answer 6).
Regarding the second of the above requirements (i.e., “the wavelength
of the stimulable [i.e., stimulating] light fluctuates in a manner that would
cause a change in the intensity of the stimulable [i.e., stimulated] emission”),
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

9
the Examiner (Final Action 8) cites the following passage in Bradley to
show that the wavelength emitted by a semiconductor laser inherently drifts
with changes in temperature:
The range of operating temperatures over which diode
lasers normally operated is about 20º C. to 70º C. The variation in
wavelength is about 5 Å/º C. for laser diodes with conventional
cavities, and about 1 Å/º C. for DFB [distributed feedback5] or
DBR [distributed Bragg reflector6] lasers. Therefore, the
wavelength will drift about 50 Å [5 nm7] over the required
temperature range for even the best stabilized lasers.
Bradley, col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 2. Appellant agrees that “Bradley discloses
that lasers tend to have a wavelength drift over a temperature range.”
(Br. 13.) Based on this teaching, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to provide a known conventional laser
(e.g., a stabilized semiconductor laser having a laser wavelength
located at the maximum of the stimulation spectrum and wherein
the laser wavelength drifts ≤5 nm with operating temperature, in
order to optimize photostimulation of the radiation image
converter panel) as the unspecified laser in the apparatus of
Nakamura.
(Answer 7.) Thus, we understand the Examiner’s position to be (1) that it
would have been obvious to modify Nakamura by selecting a semiconductor
(e.g., diode) laser that has a wavelength corresponding to the phosphor’s
peak emission output value and (2) that wavelength emitted by the

5 Bradley, col. 1, l. 37.
6 Bradley, col. 1, l. 38.
7 See Reply Brief 5 (referring to “wavelengths ±2.5 nm (50 angstroms)”).
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

10
semiconductor laser inherently will drift with temperature. Appellant’s
argument that this position is unsound because “the Examiner fails to
provide any objective documentation taken from the references themselves
(Nakamura, Neyens, or Bradley) that provides justification for the
Examiner’s proposed motivation to combine” (Br. 13) is not explained and
not understood.
Turning now to the requirement of claim 1 for “stimulating light in a
wavelength range where the rate of change of the intensity of the stimulated
emission to a given change of the wavelength of the stimulating light is not
larger than 1.0%/nm and is not smaller than -1.0%/nm,” the Examiner has
provided (Answer 5) an annotated version (reproduced below) of the
stimulation spectrum of Nakamura’s Figure 1 in order to show that this
requirement inherently will be satisfied by Nakamura as modified above.
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

11

Specifically, the Examiner found that “[i]t is . . . clear from Fig. 1 of
Nakamura that the stimulated emission intensity changes less than 0.5%
(relative to the peak stimulated emission intensity Iem-max) when the
stimulation wavelength is changed ±2.5 nm (from the stimulation
wavelength λs-max)” (Answer 6). We assume the Examiner’s choice of a
stimulation wavelength variation of ±2.5 nm is based on Bradley’s above-
quoted disclosure that the wavelength of a diode laser can drift about 50Å (5
nm) over the required operating temperature range.
Appellant (Reply Br. 5) argues that the Examiner’s reliance on the
stimulation spectrum in Nakamura’s Figure 1 is misplaced because its
vertical axis represents the “relative intensity” of stimulated emission rather
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

12
than the claimed “intensity” of the stimulated emission, which means the
Examiner “can only guess as to the values on the spectrum which are within
1.0%/nm and -1.0%/nm of the peak value, and can further only guess the
emission values in FIG. 1 of Nakamura for wavelengths ±2.5 nm
(50 angstroms) from the wavelength of the peak emission.” Appellant further
argues (id.) that “[t]he Examiner's basic error is imparting scale to the
disclosure of Nakamura which cannot be done absent a specific teaching,”
citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Intern., Inc., 222 F.3d 951,
956 (Fed. Cir. 2000), which states that “it is well established that patent
drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be
relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the
issue.” These arguments are unpersuasive because claim 1 does not require
that the requirement of claim 1 for “stimulating light in a wavelength range
where the rate of change of the intensity of the stimulated emission to a
given change of the wavelength of the stimulating light is not larger than
1.0%/nm and is not smaller than -1.0%/nm range” be satisfied for the entire
range of variation of the stimulating wavelength. As a result, it is only
necessary for Figure 1 to demonstrate that this claim requirement is satisfied
for some amount of variation in the stimulation wavelength, an amount that can
be much less than ±2.5 nm. We find that Nakamura’s Figure 1 prima facie
provides such a showing. Even though Nakamura does not disclose the scale
of the stimulation spectrum depicted therein, it is evident from the shape of the
spectrum curve that shifting the stimulating wavelength by a miniscule amount
(e.g., 0.001 nm) from the wavelength (i.e., 650 nm) that provides peak
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

13
emission value will change the emission value by less than 1%/nm of the
change in the stimulating wavelength.
For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the rejection of claim 1
for obviousness over Nakamura in view of Neyens and Bradley and also the
rejection on that ground of dependent claims 2 and 4-7, which are not
separately argued. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c)(1)(vii) (2006).

B. Claim 3
Appellant argues (Br. 14) that dependent claim 3, which stands
rejected for obviousness over Nakamura in view of Neyens, Bradley, and
Research Disclosure, is patentable because Research Disclosure does not
teach the claim 1 subject matter that is allegedly lacking in Nakamura,
Neyens, and Bradley. Because we have determined that this alleged
deficiency does not exist, we are affirming the rejection of claim 3.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Nakamura in view of Neyens and Bradley is affirmed, as is
the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Nakamura in view of Neyens, Bradley, and Research Disclosure.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2009).
AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-010718
Application 10/714,851

14

gvw

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037