Ex Parte Henseler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2016

13017617 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/017,617 0113112011
28524 7590 05/09/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Debora Henseler
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.
2010P01688US01 7015
EXAMINER
MALKOWSKI, KENNETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2016 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBORA HENSELER, MATTHIAS J. SCHMAND,
and RONALD GRAZIOSO
Appeal2014-008950
Application 13/017 ,617
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, 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, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a radiation detection system and method.
Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative:
1. A system comprising:
a detector configured to generate depth of interaction (DOI)
information of radiation emitted from a radiation source, the detector
including:
Appeal2014-008950
Application 13/017,617
a plurality of scintillator pixels forming a block, the block having a
first portion proximate a radiation incident side thereof, and a second portion
proximate a sensor side thereof;
the scintillator pixels having a pattern of optical separation media and
optical coupling media disposed therebetween in said first portion, and a
pattern of optical coupling media and optical separation media disposed
therebetween in said second portion that is opposite to the pattern in said
first portion, thereby forming a position profile of said block; and
a plurality of sensors for detecting scintillation events in each
scintillator pixel as a result of absorption of a radiation photon therein,
wherein DOI information of radiation photons in each scintillator pixel is
provided by detected position of the scintillation events with respect to the
position profile of the block, and
an image processor using the DOI information to reconstruct a
radiation image.
21. A method of providing depth of interaction (DOI) information
of radiation emitted from a radiation source, comprising:
defining separate portions of a scintillator pixel array as a first portion
proximate a radiation incident side thereof and a second portion proximate a
scintillation detector side thereof;
forming a first pattern of optical coupling and optical separation
between pixels in said first portion;
forming a second pattern of optical separation and optical coupling
between pixels in said second portion;
said first and second patterns defining a position profile of said
scintillator pixel array providing a plurality of scintillator pixels forming a
block, wherein
detection of scintillation event position distributions in said scintillator
pixel array provides DOI information in accordance with the position
profile.
Murayama
Corbeil
The References
US 2004/0178347 Al
US 2004/0262526 Al
2
Sep. 16,2004
Dec. 30, 2004
Appeal2014-008950
Application 13/017,617
Takehiro Kasahara et al., Improvement of the Depth of Interaction Detector
for PET on Full Energy Pulse Height Uniformity, 50 IEEE TRANS. NUCLEAR
SCI. 1439-44 (Oct. 2003) (hereinafter Kasahara).
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
3, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, and 21 over Murayama in view of Kasahara, 1 and
claims 14 and 16-20 over Murayama in view of Kasahara and Corbeil. 2
OPINION
The rejections are reversed as to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-20
and affirmed as to claim 21.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-20
We need address only the independent claims (1 and 14). Those
claims require a detector comprising scintillator pixels forming a block
having a first portion proximate a radiation incident side thereof and a
second portion proximate a sensor side thereof, the scintillator pixels in each
portion having a pattern of optical separation media and optical coupling
media disposed therebetween, the pattern in the second portion being
opposite to that in the first portion. 3 To meet that claim requirement the
Examiner relies upon Murayama (Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5).
1 The Examiner's statement of this rejection inadvertently omits claim 11, as
indicated by the Examiner's discussion of that claim (Final Act. 3, 5).
2 A rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 9).
3 Regarding opposite patterns the Appellants' Specification states that "[a]
preferable arrangement for providing DOI resolution over the whole block
is to use an alternating pattern of separation near the bottom I coupling near
the top, then coupling near the bottom I separation near the top and so on"
(Spec. if 44 ).
3
Appeal2014-008950
Application 13/017,617
Murayama discloses "a radiation three-dimensional position detector
which is capable of increasing the number of layers of the scintillator arrays
and excellent in detection accuracy of the position where the radiation is
absorbed" (i-f 15). In each of K scintillator array layers "a medium between
two neighboring scintillators is made up of either of a reflective material or a
translucent material with respect to the scintillation light, wherein preferably
an area covered with the reflective material in the kl-the [sic, kl-th] layer
scintillator array and an area covered with the reflective material in the k2-th
layer scintillator array appear different from each other on being viewed in
the lamination direction of the layers" (i-f 20).
The Examiner asserts that Murayama discloses "an opposite pattern of
optical coupling media and optical separation media disposed therebetween
in said second portion (paragraph [0020], 'Kl-th layer ... K2-th layer ...
appear different from each other on being viewed in the lamination direction
of the layers')" (Ans. 3).
"'[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."' In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re
Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The Examiner does not establish that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the Appellants' claim term "opposite pattern" consistent
with the Specification includes a pattern that merely is different from
another pattern. Thus, the Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the system claimed in the Appellants' claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9,
11-14, and 16-20.
4
Appeal2014-008950
Application 13/017,617
Claim 21
Murayama' s system provides depth of interaction information (i-f 15)
and has a block comprising at least one layer of scintillator arrays on each of
a radiation incident side and a scintillator detection side, each of which is a
portion of the block and has a pattern of optical coupling and optical
separation between its pixels (i-fi-f 16, 20; Fig. 1 ).
The Appellants assert that "[i]ndependent method claim 21 contains
limitations that are analogous to the limitations of claim 1; consequently, the
method of claim 21 is neither disclosed nor suggested by any consideration
of Murayama and Kasahara, for similar reasons as explained above"
(App. Br. 11).
Claim 21 does not include claim 1 's "opposite pattern" limitation.
The Appellants provide no substantive explanation as to how claim 21 is
patentably distinguished over the applied prior art. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 21.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Murayama in view of Kasahara is reversed as to
claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11-13 and affirmed as to claim 21, and the rejection
of claims 14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Murayama in view of
Kasahara and Corbeil is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5