Ex Parte Frach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

13189886 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/189,886 07/25/2011 Thomas PRACH
24737 7590 02/29/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2005P01148 US05 1117
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUNK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS PRACH and KLAUS FIEDLER
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim radiation detection methods. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
switching digital circuitry from a first digital value to a
second digital value responsive to detection of a photon by a
photodiode biased in a breakdown region, the switching
defining a switching event;
generating a trigger signal indicative of a start of an
integration time period responsive to a selected number of one
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
or more said switching events associated with a plurality of said
photodiodes; and
with the trigger signal, triggering a counter to start
accumulating a count of switching events associated with the
plurality of said photodiodes over the integration time period.
Bennett
Young
Suddarth
Crosetto
Steams
Augusto
The References
USH12
US 6,297 ,506 B 1
US 2003/0012731 Al
US 2004/0195512 Al
US 2006/0163485 Al
WO 2004/054235 Al
Jan. 7, 1986
Oct. 2, 2001
Jan. 16,2003
Oct. 7, 2004
July 27, 2006
June 24, 2004
S. Moehrs et al., A Small-Animal PET Design Using SiPMs and Anger Logic
with Intrinsic DOI, 0-7803-8700-7 /04 IEEE EXPLORE 3475-79 (2004)
(hereinafter Moehrs ).
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follov,rs: claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement, claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view
of Bennett, claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett
and Steams, claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of
Bennett, Steams and Crosetto, claims 6, 9, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Augusto in view of Bennett and Suddarth, claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Young, claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Moehrs, claims 12,
13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view ofMoehrs,
Suddarth and Bennett, claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view
ofMoehrs, Suddarth, Bennet and Young, claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
2
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
over Augusto in view of Suddarth and Bennett and claim 1 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Augusto in view ofMoehrs, Suddarth, Bennett and
Steams. 1
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We need address only the independent claims (1, 12, and 16). Claim
1 requires generating a trigger signal indicative of a start of an integration
time period responsive to a select number of one or more switching events
associated with a plurality of photodiodes and, with the trigger signal,
triggering a counter to start accumulating a count of switching events
associated with the plurality of photodiodes over the integration time period.
Claim 12 requires, in response to a selected number of one or more
switching events, generating a trigger signal which indicates a start of an
integration period and, in response to the trigger signal, counting the
switching events caused by each of a plurality of photodiodes during the
integration period. Claim 16 requires generating a trigger signal indicative
of a start of an integration time period responsive to a current through a bias
network which biases a plurality of photodiodes exceeding a selected
threshold, and accumulating a count of switching events associated with the
plurality of photodiodes over the integration time period. To meet those
claim requirements the Examiner relies upon Augusto in view of Bennett
(claim 1 ), or Augusto in view of Bennett and Suddarth (claims 12 and 16)
(Final Act. 3--4, 10-12).
1 Claim 19 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
Augusto discloses "in-pixel architectures for CMOS [complementary
metal oxide semiconductor] image sensors which are suitable for avalanche
photo-diodes [APDs] operating either in linear or in non-linear [e.g., Geiger]
mode" (abstract; p. 3, 11. 4--8). Augusto discloses:
The CMOS devices directly controlling, and handling the
output of the photo-diodes can be arranged into circuits that
handle the photo-current in two fundamentally different ways,
namely:
1) Conversion of the detected photo-current amplitude to
digital values;
2) Conversion of the detected photo-current frequency to
digital values;
Both cases can be implemented for an asynchronous
tracking of the input signal, in which case, both require "in-
pixel" counters . . . . [T]ransforming frequency into digital
values does not require a comparator, and it is accomplished by
feeding the sequence of pulses the APD generates (already in
digital form) to a digital counter. [p. 5, 11. 10-20]
The Geiger mode, because of its extremely large gain
factor, requires quenching of the current in order to prevent
permanent damage to the photo-diode from overheating ....
Active quenching consists in resetting the photo-diode
immediately after the current has risen to high levels,
subsequent to the absorption of one or more photons by the
photo-diode. [p. 6, 11. 13-17]
The maximum frequency of detection is dependent on the
speed of the physical phenomena inside the photo-diode as well
as the speed of switching of the circuitry associated with the
photo-diode. The maximum frequency of detection provides
the upper limit to the number of photons that can be counted by
the photo-diode per unit of time, and thus the maximum
dynamic range possible to detect with a given APD &
associated circuitry. [p. 6, 11. 22-26]
4
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
Figure 2 shows the "in-pixel" circuitry that operates in
"frequency of detection" mode, and the corresponding circuitry
for the resetting of the photo-diode (after a first detection),
ending with the photo-diode in "stand-by", ready for the next
detection. [p. 6, 11. 28-30]
Figure 4 shows the circuit of Figure 2, plus the in-pixel
counters .... [p. 7, 1. 4]
Information about time of arrival of photons does not
require any additional circuitry to the circuitry that is shown in
Figures 2 and 4. Essentially a clock at the periphery stops when
the detection of the first photons occurs. This feature can be
implemented for every color pixel, or for example, for the
group of pixels under each PDCU [pixel digital control unit].
[p. 7' 11. 7-10]
Bennett discloses that in nuclear medicine imaging systems wherein
"cameras convert scintillation events from radiation into electric signals that
represent the x, y position coordinates of each event and the energy (z) of
each event" (col. 3, 11. 36-46), "[g]enerally, it has been the practice to put
the energy or intensity signal (z) through a pulse height analyzer or
'window' and to accept for processing only those signals within the energy
limits of the window" (col. 3, 11. 47-50).
Suddarth monitors radiation and/or metabolic activity in a subject
such as a chemotherapy patient using a radiation sensor (25) which can be
configured for direct conversion wherein ionizing radiation creates an
electron-hole pair in a region of a detector and changes can be separated by a
biasing electric field and collected as a current through or in the device, or
indirect conversion which converts ionizing radiation to light in a scintillator
5
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
and the light is detected by the electron-hole pair production mechanism
(i-fi-f 2-3, 136). The sensor (25) can include an APD in Geiger mode (i-f 142).
The Examiner asserts that Augusto's stopping of a clock upon
detection of the first photons (p. 7, 11. 8-9) is a trigger signal indicating the
start of an integration period and that a counter (p. 7, 1. 4) counts switching
events associated with a plurality of photodiodes over the integration period
(Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4--5).
Rather than counting switching events after the clock has stopped
upon detection of the first photons, Augusto's counter, when an APD is
operating in Geiger mode and before the clock has stopped, appears to count
photons to ensure that due to the Geiger mode's extremely large gain factor,
the APD, subsequent to absorbing one or more photons, is reset before it has
absorbed enough photons that the current is high enough to cause the APD
to overheat and thereby be permanently damaged (p. 6, 11. 13-17, 22-26).
Augusto does not appear to count the photons over any particular integration
time period.
The Examiner asserts that in view of Bennett "it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
start counting in the method of Augusto et al. by triggering the counter when
a plurality of switching events at the same time fall within an energy
window, in order to process only those switching events within the energy
limits of the window" (Final Act. 4), and in view of Bennett and Suddarth "it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to provide a scintillator in the method of Augusto et al., in
order to detect the bursts of light from the scintillator by counting when a
6
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
plurality of switching events at the same time fall within an energy window
so as to monitor radiation and/or metabolic activity in a subject" (Final
Act. 10) or "by counting when the bias network current falls within an
energy window so as to monitor radiation and/or metabolic activity in a
subject" (Final Act. 12).
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
Examiner does not address the differences between Augusto's method,
Bennett's nuclear system imaging method and Suddarth's radiation
monitoring method and explain why, regardless of those differences, Bennett
and Suddarth would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an
apparent reason to modify Augusto's method as proposed by the Examiner.
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants' claimed method.
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner asserts that the Appellants' original disclosure lacks
written descriptive support for the claim 19 limitation "terminating the
counting before the end of the integration period in response to ... a current
flowing through the biasing network falling below a second current
threshold for a selected time interval" (Final Act. 2).
The Appellants' original disclosure provides written descriptive
support for that claim limitation as follows (Spec. p. 13):
In one approach, the trigger validation circuitry 85 analyzes the
current flowing through the bias network of the pixel 22. If the
7
Appeal2014-003728
Application 13/189,886
total current stays below a certain current threshold for a
selected time interval (e.g. for 10 nanoseconds into the
acquisition time period) as measured by a discriminator or other
circuitry, then the acquisition is aborted and an automatic reset
sequence is initiated in preparation for the next trigger.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
lack of written descriptive support for the method claimed in the Appellants'
claim 19.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 1-3 and 10 over Augusto in view of Bennett, claim 4 over Augusto in
view of Bennett and Steams, claim 5 over Augusto in view of Bennett,
Steams and Crosetto, claims 6, 9, 11, and 20 over Augusto in view of
Bennett and Suddarth, claim 7 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Young,
claim 8 over Augusto in view of Bennett and Moehrs, claims 12, 13, 15,
and 18 over Augusto in view of Moehrs, Suddarth and Bennett, claim 14
over Augusto in view of Moehrs, Suddarth, Bennett and Young, claim 16
over Augusto in view of Suddarth and Bennett and claim 1 7 over Augusto in
view of Moehrs, Suddarth, Bennett and Steams are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
8