11575660 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014)

Ex Parte Carmi

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 2014

11575660 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RAZ CARMI ____________________ Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 11-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 8 and 10 are canceled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a computed tomography imaging apparatus which includes a radiation detector with detection modules skewed in an axial direction by a selected angle (Abstract). Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A radiographic imaging apparatus comprising: a radiation detector having detection modules that are angularly skewed by a prespecified angle greater than 0° and less than 45° in relation to an axial direction and aligned with each other along a transverse direction transverse to the axial direction. 21. A radiographic imaging method comprising: mounting detection modules of a radiation detector skewed by a prespecified angle not equal to 45° in relation to an axial direction; Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 3 aligning the detection modules with each other along a transverse direction transverse to the axial direction; and aligning equally spaced rows of pixels along the axial direction, wherein the centers of the aligned pixels are equally spaced around an axis of rotation, the distance between the rows being inversely proportional to a sampling rate along the rotational direction. REFERENCES Toth Hu Lai Baetz US 5,361,291 US 5,510,622 US 6,118,841 US 6,341,156 B1 Nov. 1, 1994 Apr. 23, 1996 Sep. 12, 2000 Jan. 22, 2002 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: (1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 12-14, 17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hu (Ans. 3-5). (2) Claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Baetz (Ans. 5-8).1 (3) Claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Lai (Ans. 8-10). (4) Claims 5-7, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu or Lai, and Toth (Ans. 10). 1 The Examiner inadvertently includes claim 10 in the Grounds of Rejection of the Answer for both rejection (2) and (3). Claim 10 has been cancelled. Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 4 ISSUES 1 and 2 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) – Hu: Claims 1, 3, 4, 12-14, 17, and 19-22 Appellant argues the invention is not anticipated by Hu (App. Br. 5-7). The issues presented by these arguments are: Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hu discloses “detection modules that are angularly skewed by a prespecified angle greater than 0° and less than 45° in relation to an axial direction and aligned with each other along a transverse direction transverse to the axial direction,” as recited in claim 1? Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hu discloses “aligning equally spaced rows of pixels along the axial direction, wherein the centers of the aligned pixels are equally spaced around an axis of rotation, the distance between the rows being inversely proportional to a sampling rate along the rotational direction,” as recited in claim 21? ANALYSIS Issue 1: Appellant argues Figure 3d of Hu discloses skewing the shape of the otherwise rectangular detector elements as shown by line 44 (App. Br. 5-6). According to Appellant, skewing the shape of the detector element does not describe “angularly skewed by a prespecified angle . . . in relation to an axial direction,” as recited in claim 1. We are not persuaded. The Examiner interprets “skew” as “set, placed or running obliquely” (Ans. 11). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the interpretation is in error. Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 5 Based on this interpretation, the Examiner finds Figure 3d describes detector elements angularly skewed by an angle (Ans. 11). We agree with the Examiner and find Hu discloses the disputed limitation recited in claim 1. Issue 2: Appellant argues Figure 3d of Hu discloses alternate columns of detector elements are translated (i.e., offset) by a distance equal to one-half the distance between detector element-centers in the same column, which increases the number of sample points and reduces the distances between centers (App. Br. 6-7). According to Appellant, Hu’s disclosure of translating alternate column centers does not describe “the centers of the aligned pixels are equally spaced around an axis of rotation, the distance between the rows being inversely proportional to a sampling rate along the rotational direction,” as recited in claim 21. We are not persuaded. Figure 2 of the present invention (reproduced blow) is illustrative of the claimed invention: Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 6 Figure 2 is a diagrammatic representation of a portion of the radiation detector module rotated by a first angle of the present invention. As shown above in Figure 2, equally spaced rows 52 of pixels are aligned along the axial direction OZ (Spec. 6, ll. 12-13). Also as shown, the centers of aligned pixels, such as pixels 5042, 5034, 5026, and 5018, are equally spaced by distance dx around an axis of rotation OX (id. at ll. 13-15). Additionally, the distance between the rows dz is inherently inversely proportional to a sampling rate along the rotational (Z) direction (id. at ll. 23-25) — compare, for instance, Figures 2 and 3 of Appellant’s Specification, which illustrate that a lower dz value equates to a higher sampling frequency in the Z-direction (see Fig. 2), and a higher dz value equates to a lower sampling frequency in the Z-direction (see Fig. 3). Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 7 Figure 3D of Hu is reproduced below rotated and flipped so that the Z- and X-axes correspond to Figure 2 of the present invention for ease of explanation. Figure 3D is a plan view of an embodiment of a detector array which forms part of a CT imaging system. Figure 3D of Hu illustrates equally spaced rows of pixels aligned along the axial direction; that is, each of the rows of detector elements is equally spaced (i.e., adjacent rows are equidistant) and aligned along the Z- direction (i.e., the rows are oriented perpendicularly in respect to the Z-axis). Additionally, as shown in Figure 3D of Hu, the centers of the aligned detector elements in each row are equally spaced in respect to the X-axis of rotation. Furthermore, the arrangement of Hu is substantially similar to Appellants’ - the distance between the rows is similarly inversely proportional to a sampling rate along the rotational Z-direction; i.e., the Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 8 smaller the distance between the rows, the higher the sampling frequency will necessarily be, and vice versa. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”). See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708-09 (Fed. Cir. 1990) For these reasons, we are persuaded Hu teaches, “aligning equally spaced rows of pixels along the axial direction, wherein the centers of the aligned pixels are equally spaced around an axis of rotation, the distance between the rows being inversely proportional to a sampling rate along the rotational direction,” as recited in claim 21. Claims 3, 4, 12-14, 17, 19, 20, and 22 were not separately argued by Appellant and therefore fall with claims 1 and 21. Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 12-14, 17, and 19-22 as anticipated by Hu. ISSUES 3 and 4 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) – Baetz: Claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19-22 Appellant argues the claimed invention is not anticipated by Baetz (App. Br. 7-9). The issues presented by these arguments are: Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Baetz discloses “detection modules that are angularly skewed by a prespecified angle greater than 0° and less than 45° in relation to an axial direction and aligned with each other Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 9 along a transverse direction transverse to the axial direction” as recited in claim 1? Issue 4: Has the Examiner shown Baetz anticipates the invention as recited in claim 21? ANALYSIS Issue 3: Appellant argues Baetz discloses a solid-state flat detector 7 turned at an angle in the slice direction (App. Br. 8). According to Appellant, Baetz describes a “turn” as a rotation about the x-z plane—not an angular skew (id.). The Examiner finds Baetz describes the solid-state flat detector is turned at an angle of, for example, 10º relative to the tomosynthesis or slice direction (Ans. 12). The Examiner further finds Figure 3 discloses detector elements set obliquely (id.). Therefore, the Examiner finds Baetz discloses the detector elements are angularly skewed by an angle (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “angularly skewed” does not encompass a rotation, i.e., a turn, such as taught by Baetz. Appellant references, inter alia, page 9, lines 16-18 and page 10, lines 27-30 of the Specification as supporting the subject matter of claim 1 (App. Br. 3). Both of the passages at pages 9 and 10 of the Specification describe the module being “rotated” by an angle of rotation: The module 18 is rotated by the angle of rotation α, which in a case of square pixels is preferably equal to arctan(0.5), to align Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 10 the centers of the detection segments 901, 902, ... , 90n along associated rows 52 parallel to the rotational direction OX. (Spec. 9, ll. 16-18 (emphasis added)). With reference to FIGURES 11-12, the module 18 is rotated by the angle of rotation α, which is preferably equal to 45° (in case of square pixels), to align the centers of the detection segments 901, 902, … , 90n along associated rows 52 parallel to the rotational 30 direction OX. (Spec. 10, ll. 27-30 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we find the broadest reasonable interpretation of “angularly skewed” encompasses rotations, in accordance with the above- identified teachings in Specification. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Baetz discloses the disputed limitation recited in claim 1. Issue 4: Appellant argues Examiner has not made a prima facie case of anticipation in respect to claim 21 because the Final Office Action and the Advisory Action did not identify which features of the prior art correspond to the claimed invention. We are not persuaded. The Examiner found Baetz describes each of the elements recited in claim 21 (see Ans. 12-13). Appellant did not proffer sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 and 21 as anticipated by Baetz. Claims 2-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 were not separately argued by the Appellant and therefore fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 11 ISSUES 5 and 6 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) – Lai: Claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19-22 Appellant argues the claimed invention is not anticipated by Lai (App. Br. 9-11). The issues presented by these arguments are: Issue 5: Has the Examiner erred in finding Lai discloses “detection modules that are angularly skewed by a prespecified angle greater than 0° and less than 45° in relation to an axial direction and aligned with each other along a transverse direction transverse to the axial direction,” as recited in claim 1? Issue 6: Has the Examiner shown Lai discloses the invention as recited in claim 21? ANALYSIS Issue 5: Appellant argues Lai’s Figure 23 discloses a detector array having a relative shift in z-position along the transition axis for each column and this relative shift does not correspond to the skew as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10). In response, the Examiner notes that Figures 27a and 27b of Lai are relied upon as describing the invention as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 13). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 12 Issue 6: Appellant argues Examiner has not made a prima facie case of anticipation in respect to claim 21 because the Final Office Action and the Advisory Action did not identify which features of the prior art correspond to the claimed invention. We do not agree because in the Final Rejection (p. 8), the Examiner identified Lai as anticipating claim 21 on the basis of Figures 23, 27a, and 27b. Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 21 as anticipated by Lai. Claims 2-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 were not separately argued by the Appellant and therefore fall with claims 1 and 21. ISSUE 7 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Lai and Toth: Claims 5-7, 14, and 18 Appellant argues the claimed invention is patentable over the combination of Lai and Toth but does not present separate arguments in support thereof (App. Br. 11). Accordingly, claims 5-7, 14, and 18 fall with claim 1 (see supra Issue 5). Appeal 2011-005209 Application 11/575,660 13 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12-14, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hu is affirmed.2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Baetz is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lai is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu or Lai and Toth 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 msc 2 Claim 20 recites “[a] radiographic imaging apparatus for performing the method of claim 13.” Thus, claim 20, an apparatus, depends from claim 13, a method claim. As such, claim 20 does not appear to meet the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”). See also Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006).