Ex Parte Caruba et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 4, 2011

11165937 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 4, 2011)

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.
11/165,937 06/24/2005 James Frank Caruba 2004P07991 US01 5038
28524 7590 08/04/2011
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES FRANK CARUBA and JOHN C. ENGDAHL
_____________

Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

claim

prov

eal 2009-0
lication 11
Appellan
s 1-5, 7-1
We reve
isions of 3
Appellan
09759
/165,937
ST
ts appeal
1, and 13-
rse and ins
7 C.F.R. §
ts’ Figure
ATEMEN
under 35 U
22. We ha
titute a ne
41.50(b).
INV
4 is repro
2
T OF TH
.S.C. § 13
ve jurisdi
w grounds

ENTION
duced belo
E CASE
4(a) from
ction unde
of rejecti

w:
the final r
r 35 U.S.C
on within
ejection o
. § 6(b).
the

f
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

3
Appellants’ Figure 4 and claimed invention are directed to front end
electronics used with low leakage current photosensors that detect signals in
nuclear medicine imaging (Spec. ¶¶ [0001]-[0002], [0017]). The front-end
electronics include a multi-channel Application Specific Integrated Circuit
(ASIC) 400 with independently triggered charge sensitive pre-amplifiers 40,
shaper circuits 42, and switched sample-and-hold capacitor circuits 46
(Spec. ¶ [0026]). The sample-and-hold capacitor circuits 46 have
electronically controlled switches 46a, 46b for each photodiode or pixel of
the detector module (id.). With this structure, individual photodiodes of the
photodetector array can detect and store scintillation events independently
and randomly (id.). The ASIC 400 is interfaced to an external successive
approximation A/D converter 500 (id.).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added):
1. A radiation detector system, comprising:
a gantry;
a radiation detector head mounted on said gantry, said radiation
detector head including a scintillator and a solid-state photodetector coupled
to detect photon emissions from said scintillator;
an electronic circuit for processing a signal outputted from said
photodetector, said electronic circuit including a shaper circuit that receives
said output signal from said photodetector and integrates said output signal
for a predetermined amount of time to produce an integrated signal, a
switched sample/hold circuit that receives a sample of said integrated signal,
and a trigger circuit that triggers a switch of said sample/hold circuit to
receive said integrated signal when said output signal from said
photodetector exceeds a predetermined threshold;
an A/D converter that receives sample signals from said switched
sample/hold circuit and converts such signals to digital data;
a sample/hold output switch that connects an output of said switched
sample/hold circuit to said A/D converter when closed in response to
completion of integration by said shaper circuit; and
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

4
a data processing system that receives said digital data and processes
it to construct radiological images of a radiation distribution detected by said
radiation detector head.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Valentine US 4,767,929 Aug. 30, 1988
Yamakawa US 4,769,755 Sep. 6, 1988
Thompson US 5,323,006 Jun. 21, 1994
Yu US 6,303,943 B1 Oct. 16, 2001
Nygard US 2002/0145115 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
Tumer US 2003/0105397 A1 Jun. 5, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 7-10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Nygard in view of Thompson and
Yamakawa.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nygard in view of Thompson and Yamakawa, and
further in view of Yu.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nygard in view of Thompson and Yamakawa, and further
in view of Valentine.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Tumer.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tumer in view of Nygard.
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

5
6. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tumer in view of Yu.
7. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tumer in view of Valentine.

ISSUES
A. Did the Examiner err in determining that Nygard teaches or
suggests the limitation of “a sample/hold output switch that connects an
output of said switched sample/hold circuit to said A/D converter when
closed in response to completion of integration by said shaper circuit” as
recited in claim 1.
B. Did the Examiner err in determining that Tumer teaches the
limitation of
wherein each trigger circuit compares an output signal of
its associated photodetector with a preselected threshold value
and outputs a trigger signal that enables a sample/hold circuit
associated with said associated photodetector to be triggered
independently of other sample/hold circuits so as to receive an
output signal from an associated shaper circuit only in response
to a scintillation event being detected by said associated
photodetector
as recited in claim 14.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Appellants’ Specification states:
the photodiode array 10 generate[s] a current. . . . amplified by
the preamplifier 20, and then integrated over a shaping time (ts)
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

6
(also known as the “shaper peaking time” or “integration time”)
by the shaper circuit 22. The resulting signal is a shaped pulse
with peak amplitude related to the amount of charge
accumulated over the integration time ts.
(Spec. ¶ [0011]).
2. Nygard teaches that “[t]he outputs of the slow shapers 23 are read by
respective sample and hold circuits 26 if activated by an external sample and
hold signal 27” (¶ [0067]).
3. Nygard teaches that: “[t]he composite trigger unit 28 produces a trigger
signal when any of the pixels in the respective channel goes ‘active.’ The
output of composite trigger unit 28 goes high whenever one or more pixels is
‘active’” (id.).
4. Nygard teaches that: “[t]he composite trigger output 34 is used to
generate a signal fed to the OR-gate 17 (shown in FIG. 2), the external
sample and hold signal 27, and other signals including a ripple-signal 53 and
a trigger signal 59 as indicated in FIG. 5” (¶ [0068] (emphases added)).
5. Nygard teaches that: “[a] logic signal DLT derived from the composite
trigger output 34 is commonly fed to the respective second input of each of
the AND-gates 41 via an inverter 43 . . . ” (¶ [0070]).
6. Nygard teaches that:
[t]he composite trigger output 34 is used as a reference timing
signal for the readout process to enable sampling of the sample
and hold circuits 26 at the correct time and to initiate the ripple-
signal 53 that is applied from the top channel, and ripples
through each channel until it arrives at a channel where the SR
Flip Flop 42 is set HIGH.
(¶ [0071]).
7. Nygard teaches that the energy signal (Fig. 5 (48)) for each channel is
read in sequence from the top channel (e.g., channel 1) to channel n using a
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

7
ripple signal and clock. Only the channels with channel HIGH signals
(activated pixels) are read and the un-activated channels are not read (¶¶
[0071]-[0072]; Figs. 3-5; see Abstract).
8. Nygard teaches that: “FIG. 6e shows graphically successive clock signals
fed to the D-type Flip Flops 45 in the sparse readout circuit 29 and FIGS. 6f
and 6g show graphically the respective address signal 47 and energy signal
48” (¶ [0075]).
9. Tumer teaches that:
[t]he developed system can also be used for applications where
single photons are emitted by a source or an object, detected
and/or imaged by the detector presented here. In such a case
there is no need for coincident detection and these sections of
the detector may not be used or deployed.
(¶ [0075]).
10. Tumer teaches that: “FIG. 3 shows details of the coincidence logic and
sample/hold control circuit 25. . . . [T]he output signals from the one-shot
circuits 162, 164 have to be sent through the delay circuits 166, 165 before
being input to the coincidence circuits 168, 173” (¶ [0081]).
11. Tumer teaches that: “[i]n designing the readout electronics for an LSO/
APD based PET system, the main consideration was to obtain high-
resolution coincidence timing. This is required to achieve the combination
of high singles count rates and low accidental coincidence rates that is
needed for high-contrast PET imaging” (¶ [0089]).
12. Tumer teaches that sample/hold control signal1 23 (Fig. 1; ¶ [0074])
corresponds to the signal to sample/hold switch 139 (Fig. 2; ¶ [0079]) which
corresponds to sample/hold signal1 169 (Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]).
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

8
13. Tumer teaches that HIT1 9 (Fig. 1; ¶ [0074]) corresponds to HIT signal
144 (Fig. 2; ¶ [0080]) which corresponds to HIT1 signal 160 (Fig. 3; ¶
[0081]).
14. Valentine teaches a method to produce a voltage signal whose voltage is
proportional to the input pulse count rate. This voltage signal is used to vary
the discriminator threshold level to extend the dynamic detector range (col.
2, l. 62 to col. 2, l. 17).

ANALYSIS
Analysis with respect to claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13
A. Does Nygard teach or suggest the limitation of “a sample/hold output
switch that connects an output of said switched sample/hold circuit to
said A/D converter when closed in response to completion of
integration by said shaper circuit” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2) that the claim 1
limitation at issue “requires that the integration of the shaper circuit be
monitored such that upon completion, the sample/hold output switch is
closed” (emphasis added).
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner’s
interpretation (Ans. 10-11) of “completion of integration,” as requiring the
elapse of any predetermined amount of time, is incorrect because monitoring
is a clear requirement of the claim 1. Appellants contend (App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 2) that the claim 1 language itself explicitly requires completion of
integration by the shaper circuit.
At the outset, we note that we do not agree with Appellants’
arguments that claim 1 either implicitly or explicitly requires monitoring,
because Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

9
claim 1 limitation of “a predetermined amount of time to produce an
integrated signal” (emphasis added) which would contradict the notion of
“monitoring” as argued (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2) to determine completion of
integration. Furthermore, we find no support for the teaching of monitoring
in Appellants’ own Specification. Appellants do not cite to any support in
the Specification. Furthermore, the Examiner points (Ans. 11) to
Appellants’ Specification (FF 1) which discloses in paragraph [0011] that
the shaper circuit 22 integrates over a shaping time (ts) (also known as the
“shaper peaking time” or ”integration time”) the amplified current from the
photodiode array.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 11) that the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification (FF 1) of
“completion of integration” is that integration is complete after the elapse of
“a predetermined amount of time,” rather than the result of any monitoring
of integration.
Nonetheless, we agree with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 6-8;
Reply Br. 2-3) that Nygard does not teach the limitation of “a sample/hold
output switch that connects an output of said switched sample/hold circuit to
said A/D converter when closed in response to completion of integration by
said shaper circuit” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).
Contrary to the Examiner’s interpretation (Ans. 12-13) of Nygard’s
Figure 6 and Nygard’s paragraphs [0071]-[0072], the multiplexer cell 40
triggered by the Q output of D Flip Flop 45 is not in response to the
completion of integration of said shaper circuit 23 (associated with the
multiplexer cell). We agree with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 2-3) that Nygard’s sample/hold circuits 26 are all triggered by a common
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

10
composite trigger signal 27 (FF 2-4; Figs. 3-5) that goes active when one or
more pixels become active. This means that the start of the integration of
the shaper circuits occurs independent of the time the associated sensor is
activated and therefore the time of integration will vary depending on which
one(s) of the pixels become active.
In addition, Nygard teaches outputting of the sample hold circuit (Fig.
3 (26)) to the multiplexer cell (Fig. 5 (40)) in response to at least the output
of the composite trigger signal (Fig. 3 (“COMPOSITE TRIGGER
OUTPUT”); FF 5) and ripple-signal (Fig. 5 (53); FF 4, 6). More
particularly, Nygard teaches (FF 6-8) that the sample and hold switch
(multiplexer, 40) is turned on (closed) in a sequence starting from the top
channel going down. Therefore, the integration time for a particular shaper
circuit varies (i.e., is not a set predetermined time) with the shaper circuit
channel address and how many other sensors are active.
Therefore, the claimed sample and hold switch does not close after “a
predetermined amount of time” since the time of integration of the shaper
circuit varies depending on when the first sensors are activated (FF 2-4)
(start of integration), and the end of integration (Fig. 5 (multiplexer 40
turned on)), varies depending on the sensor’s channel address (FF 7) and
how many other sensors are active (FF 6, 7).
Thus for the reasons above, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and of claims 2-5, 7-11, and 13 that depend from claim 1.

Analysis with respect to claims 14-22
B. Does Tumer teach the limitation of
wherein each trigger circuit compares an output
signal of its associated photodetector with a preselected
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

11
threshold value and outputs a trigger signal that enables
a sample/hold circuit associated with said associated
photodetector to be triggered independently of other
sample/hold circuits so as to receive an output signal
from an associated shaper circuit only in response to a
scintillation event being detected by said associated
photodetector
as recited in claim 14?
Appellants argue (Reply Br. 4) that the Tumer paragraph [0075] term
“these sections” refers to Tumer Figure 3 and “[i]f Fig. 3 were not used, then
there exists no basis for the rejection, which relies on Fig. 3.”
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument because the Examiner
relied (Ans. 7) on Tumer Figure 3 sample/hold signal 169, 174 and Tumer
paragraph [0081] that discusses Tumer Figure 3. But Tumer paragraph
[0075] (FF 9) teaches that the coincident detection of Figure 3 is not used in
the single photon detector embodiment. Therefore the Examiner’s rejection
improperly relies on Tumer’s Figure 3 sample/hold signal 169, 174 which
would not be triggered but for the detection of a valid coincidence by the
coincidence circuit 168, 173 (¶ [0081]). Accordingly, we will reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 and of claims 15-22 that depend from
claim 14.

New Grounds of Rejection
Rejection of claims 14, 15, 18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tumer
Claims 14, 15, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tumer. We find that claim 14 is obvious in view of
Tumer’s single photo detector embodiment described in paragraph [0075] as
modified by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. We find that
App
App

if the
optio
signa
argu
from
wou
2 (H
Sam
detec

art w
resul
para
eal 2009-0
lication 11
coinciden
nal (FF 9)
l supporti
ed by App
Tumer pa
ld be remo
it line 144
ple/Hold s
tor embod
Tumer’s
ould know
t in an ena
graph [007
09759
/165,937
ce logic a
, one skill
ng circuitr
ellants (Re
ragraph [0
ved from t
)) to its ou
witch 139)
iment (¶ [
Figure 2 i
to modif
bling wor
5].
nd Sample
ed in the a
y (FF 10)
ply Br. 4)
075] (FF
he circuit
tput sampl
) which w
0075]).
s marked u
y it so that
kable sing
12
/Hold con
rt would u
in Figure 3
. One skil
9, 12, 13) t
by connec
e/hold con
ould yield
p below t
the remov
le photo de
trol (Figs.
nderstand
would al
led in the
hat contro
ting its inp
trol1 line 2
Tumer’s w
o show ho
al of the e
tector em
1 (elemen
that the re
so not be u
art would
ller 25 (Fi
ut HIT1 li
3 (Fig. 2
orking si
w one skil
ntire Figu
bodiment
t 25), 3) is
maining
sed as
understand
g. 1)
ne 9, (Fig.
(line to
ngle photo
led in the
re 3 would
of Tumer

Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

13
Accordingly, we herein institute a new ground of rejection for claim
14. We additionally enter a new ground of rejection for claims 15, 18, and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tumer as applied
supra in the new grounds of rejection and as previously applied by the
Examiner (Ans. 7-9).

Rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tumer in view of Valentine
Regarding claim 19, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale
as enumerated in the Answer (Ans. 10) with the only difference being that
Tumer’s Figure 2 is modified as articulated supra. In particular, Valentine
(FF 14) teaches varying threshold values to extend the range for the
radiation counter, and thus, one skilled in the art would modify Tumer’s
threshold to make it as a function of the count rate as taught by Valentine to
further extend the range counting.

CONCLUSIONS
A. The Examiner erred in determining that Nygard teaches or
suggests the limitation of “a sample/hold output switch that connects an
output of said switched sample/hold circuit to said A/D converter when
closed in response to completion of integration by said shaper circuit” as
recited in claim 1.
B. The Examiner erred in determining that Tumer teaches the
limitation of
wherein each trigger circuit compares an output signal of
its associated photodetector with a preselected threshold value
and outputs a trigger signal that enables a sample/hold circuit
associated with said associated photodetector to be triggered
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

14
independently of other sample/hold circuits so as to receive an
output signal from an associated shaper circuit only in response
to a scintillation event being detected by said associated
photodetector
as recited in claim 14.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-22 is
reversed.
We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 14, 15, 18, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
We enter new ground of rejection for claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Tumer in view of Valentine.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . .
shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (emphases added).
Appeal 2009-009759
Application 11/165,937

15
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)(iv) (2010).

REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

babc