Ex Parte Haar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2007

10168162 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS VON DER HAAR
____________

Appeal 2007-2264
Application 10/168,162
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: November 9, 2007
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas von der Haar (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 6, 7, and 10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant's invention relates generally to a radiation detector. (See
Spec. 1:5-9.) Claim 6 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
Appeal 2007-2264
Application 10/168,162

6. A radiation detector comprising:

a plurality of discrete detector elements arranged in a two-
dimensional array, each of said detector elements
comprising a scintillator and a photodiode interacting
with said scintillator, each scintillator converting
radiation incident thereon into light, said array having
edges and allowing detection of said radiation, emitted
from a focus, incident in a detector zone of said array,
said radiation having scattered radiation associated
therewith; and

said detector elements in said array including a plurality of edge
detector elements disposed at said edges of said array, the
respective scintillators of only said edge detector
elements each having an additional extent, compared to
detector elements that are not disposed at said edges, said
additional extent proceeding transversely with respect to
the edge of the array, at which the edge detector element
is located and making said edge detector elements larger
than necessary for encompassing said detection zone,
said detector elements in said array having, in
combination, a total radiation-incident area that equals a
total light-emitting area of said detector elements in said
array, and the respective scintillators of said edge
detector elements, in combination, forming a frame
around said detection zone that absorbs said scattered
radiation and that allows detection of said radiation
emitted from said focus if a shift in position of said focus
occurs.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Mattson US 4,947,412 Aug. 07, 1990
Homme EP 0932053 A1 July 28, 1999

2
Appeal 2007-2264
Application 10/168,162

Claims 6, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Homme in view of Mattson.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 8, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed October 10, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
February 12, 2007) for the respective arguments.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 6, 7, and 10.

OPINION
Independent claim 6 recites, in pertinent part, detector elements
detecting radiation "emitted from a focus, incident in a detector zone," and
the scintillators of the edge detector elements have an additional extent
"making said edge detector elements larger than necessary for encompassing
said detection zone." The additional extent forms a frame around the
detection zone that "allows detection of said radiation emitted from said
focus if a shift in position of said focus occurs." Last, claim 6 requires "a
total radiation-incident area that equals a total light-emitting area of said
detector elements."
The Examiner asserts (Ans. 3) that Homme shows in Figure 12, only
edge detector elements having an additional extent proceeding transversely
with respect to the edge of the array, making the edge detector elements
larger than the detection zone. Appellant contends (Br. 7) that Homme
shows in Figures 1 and 11 that light receiving array 6 is smaller than the
radiation incident surface of the scintillator layer 7, which makes the
3
Appeal 2007-2264
Application 10/168,162

radiation incident area larger than the light-emitting area of the detector
elements. The Examiner admits (Ans. 4) that Homme fails to allow
detection of radiation emitted from a focus if a shift in position of the focus
occurs. The Examiner relies upon Mattson to remedy this deficiency.
Appellant contends (Br. 8-10) that Mattson explicitly forms the length of the
scintillator longer than the photodiode, which makes the radiation incident
surface larger than the light-emitting surface of the detector elements. The
issue, therefore, is whether the combination of Homme and Mattson results
in a total radiation-incident area that equals a total light-emitting area of said
detector elements.
Homme shows, in Figures 1 and 11, scintillator 7 larger than light-
receiving device array 6 of photodiodes 2. Homme discloses (para. 0027)
that "substantially all the visible light generated by the scintillator 7 is made
incident on the light-receiving device 2." This would suggest that radiation
is not incident upon the additional area of the scintillator, or, rather, that the
radiation-incident area equals a total light-emitting area. We note, however,
that Homme also discloses (para. 0030) scintillators formed only in the
effective screen area, not on the light receiving devices near the bonding
pads, which reduces the sensitivity of the photodiodes near the bonding
pads, thereby suggesting that the radiation-incident area is smaller than the
light-emitting area.
Mattson discloses (col. 3, ll. 52-53) that the radiation receiving face of
the scintillator is larger in area than the photosensitive face of the
photodiode. Mattson further discloses (col. 4, ll. 20-27) that the scintillator
is sized "to subtend the full radiation fan beam including the penumbral
region associated with an x-ray tube focal spot of finite size, alignment
4
Appeal 2007-2264
Application 10/168,162

tolerances of the x-ray tube and detector ring, and focal spot wobble. . . .
[and also] to be sufficiently longer than the photodiode to overhang the
portion of the photodiode face at which the lead wires are connected." Thus,
Mattson's scintillator is sized such that the radiation-incident area is greater
than the light-emitting area of said detector element. In other words,
combining with Homme Mattson's teaching of a scintillator large enough to
allow detection of radiation emitted from a focus if a shift in position of the
focus occurs would also require making the scintillator's radiation-incident
surface greater than the light-emitting area of the detector element.
Therefore, the combination of Homme and Mattson fails to render obvious
independent claim 6 and its dependents, claims 7 and 10.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 6, 7, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

tdl/gvw

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
6600 SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
5