Ex Parte Bushko et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 9, 2007

10601715 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WIT CEZARY BUSHKO and SREEGANESH RAMASWAMY
____________________

Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,7151
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided: April 9, 2007
____________________

Before: KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-33
under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). The Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

1 Application filed June 23, 2003. Appellants do not claim benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 or § 120. The real party in interest is General Electric Co.

Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

Appellants’ invention relates to a system for avoiding contact between
an X-ray machine and a subject being imaged. In the words of the
Appellants:
The present technique also provides a collision avoidance
system for avoiding collision of a system component
with objects is provided. The system comprises a
collision avoidance array disposed on a face of the
system component, the collision avoidance array
comprising a plurality of plates configured to detect a
presence of objects and generate a corresponding
electrical signal. In addition, the system further
comprises a multiplexer coupled to the collision
avoidance array, the multiplexer configured to selectively
couple the plurality of plates to a sensing circuit. The
sensing circuit configured to sense the electrical signal
and generate a corresponding electric field around the
collision avoidance array to prevent the object from
colliding with the system sub-component.

(Specification 2, second paragraph).

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An imaging system for sensing a presence of objects near the
imaging system, the imaging system comprising:

a source configured for emitting a stream of radiation;

a detector configured for detecting a portion of radiation and
impacting a detecting face of the detector; and

a collision avoidance array disposed on the detecting face of the
detector and configured for sensing objects.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Klotz, Jr. US 5,651,044 Jul. 22, 1997
2
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

Watanabe US 6,412,978 Jul. 2, 2002
Biegelsen US 6,476,376 B1 Nov. 5, 2002

Group I: The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13-24, 26, 27,
29, 30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2004) for being anticipated by
Klotz.
Group II: The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Klotz in view of Watanabe.
Group III: The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, 25, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Klotz in view of Biegelsen.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Klotz, or rendered obvious by Klotz in combination with Watanabe or
Biegelsen, for reasons to be discussed more fully below. The Examiner
contends that each of the three groups of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
We affirm the rejections.

2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

3
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-33 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a)
(2004). The issue turns on a key limitation exhibited in claim 1, and in
similar forms in all the other claims on appeal, namely “disposed on the
detecting face of the detector.” Appellants assert that, “Klotz fails to
disclose the capacitive proximity detection system being disposed on the
detecting face of the detector assembly.” (Br. 10). Examiner asserts the
contrary. Also at issue, especially with respect to claim 15, and its
dependent claims, is whether the sensors for the detection system in Klotz
are disposed on a substrate substantially in a plane.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Group I: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10,
13-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
1. A careful reading of the claims in view of the issues raised in
the Brief and Answer indicate the key limitation to be “…a
collision avoidance array disposed on the detecting face of the
detector and configured for sensing objects.”
2. The Klotz reference discloses “[a] capacitive proximity
detection system for positioning a movable radiation imaging
element support structure with respect to a subject includes a
plurality of sensor plates disposed in a collar assembly around a
portion of an imaging component disposed towards a
subject….” (Klotz, Abstract).
4
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

3. Examiner has read the key limitation mentioned above on the
Klotz reference as follows:
Klotz clearly shows in Fig. 2 that the collision avoidance
array (formed at least in part by sensor plates 300 and
focusing shield 400) is disposed on the detector face.
Klotz illustrates this feature through the unlabeled
structures securing the shield 400 to the detector face,
where the detector face is the bottom of assembly 125,
facing the subject, as described in col. 3, lines 38-40.
(Answer 10).
4. Reviewing the Klotz reference, especially Figures 2, 3A, 3B
and 3, we note radiation detector assembly 125 which includes
“the circular tube-like structure of collar assembly 130.” (col.
4, l. 46). Examiner asserts that the collision avoidance array of
Klotz includes the sensor plates, 300, and the shield plate
elements, 400, which are part of the sensor system, and help
focus the electric field for improved sensing capabilities of the
array. (Answer 11). This avoidance array is said to be
“disposed on the detecting face of the detector.”
5. For purposes of examination, the Examiner may impart a
reasonably broad interpretation to the claims, and need not read
limitations of the specification into the claims. See In re Zletz,
cited below under Principles of Law. Examiner is reading the
radiation detector assembly 125 of Klotz as the claimed
detector, including the part 130 that extends toward the subject,
and the collision avoidance array to comprise sensor plate
elements 300 and shield plate elements 400. We find this a
5
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements, and find that
the array is indeed disposed on the detecting face of the
detector, as claimed. They are not taught to be on the back face
in Klotz, but are found on the detecting end, the side facing the
subject. Contrast this to the arrangement in Watanabe, where
the sensor is disposed on the back face of the detector. We find
this a permissible interpretation of the claimed language for the
purpose of examination.
6. Claim 15 claims the detection system somewhat differently, as
comprising “a plurality of sensors disposed on a substrate
substantially in a plane.” Appellants argue that “[t]he sensor
plates disclosed by Klotz are disposed so as to be conformal
with the curved surface structure of tube like collar assembly
[130].” (Br. 12) and “[t]hus, the Klotz reference fails to
disclose a plurality of sensors disposed on a substrate
substantially in a plane.” (Br. 12). However, Klotz describes
the pattern of the plates as: “Sensor plate elements 300 are
disposed around collar assembly in a sensing pattern 305 as
illustrated in FIG. 3(C) (a cross-sectional view of one-half of
the donut-shaped collar assembly cut along an equatorial
plane).” (Klotz, col. 5, ll. 5-8). Examiner finds this a teaching
of the claimed “substantially in a plane,” and we find the same.
Appellants point out that the elements extend above and below
the plane, as shown in Figure 3(C), but they are also in the
plane as illustrated. The plates of Klotz “are suspended in a
6
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

dielectric material 134 such as polyimide…” (Klotz, col. 4, ll.
65-66) which can be read as the claimed substrate.
Group II and Group III
The claims of these groups have not been separately argued, and relate
to the same issues considered above.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67
(CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2
(CCPA 1966).
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our reviewing court further states,
“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean
7
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002).

ANALYSIS
Appellants have contended that Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-11 and 13-33 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). Reviewing the
findings of facts cited above, we found that the elements required for a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) were present. Appellants’ arguments
have been considered. We find the sensors of Klotz to be on the detecting
face of the detector. Admittedly they are not of the same configuration as
described in the Appellants’ embodiment described in their Specification,
but the Examiner does not seem to have erred in describing the sensors as
being on the detecting face in Klotz, within the common meaning of the
term. Though not separately argued by Appellants, the Examiner did also
present evidence in Watanabe of the sensors being on the face opposite the
detecting face, as claimed in claims 6 and 28.
Concerning the second issue, the Examiner asserts that the plurality of
sensors in Klotz are disposed on a substrate, the dielectric material 134, and
are substantially in a plane. While it appears that a preferred embodiment of
the disclosed invention confines the sensors to being only within that plane,
we found that the Examiner did not err in reading the sensors of Klotz to
satisfy the claimed language, being within the plane shown in Klotz’s
Figures 3A, 3B, and especially 3C.

8
Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-33. The rejection
of those claims is affirmed.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-33 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)(2006).

AFFIRMED

tdl/ce

Patrick S. Yoder
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston TX 77269-2289
9