Ex Parte Henseler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201613017617 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation