Ex Parte Holt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2014

11419793 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/419,793 05/23/2006 Kevin HOLT 8632-85708-US
(07-021-US)
9947
76260 7590 09/11/2014
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
CORBETT, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte KEVIN HOLT
______________

Appeal 2012-006851
Application 11/419,793
Technology Center 2800
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicant appeals to the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-27. Subsequent
to the Final Office Action, Appellant cancelled claims 17-27,1 leaving
claims 1-16 for consideration on appeal. Appellant requests review of the
ground of rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Urushiya
(US 2005/0276375 A1). Appeal Br. 6;2 Ans. 4. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claim 1 is directed to a method wherein relative movement of at least
one of an energy source, such as an X-ray energy source, and a detector

1 The Examiner entered the Amendment filed September 8, 2011, in the
Advisory Action mailed December 1, 2011.
2 We consider the 1st Substitute Appeal Brief filed October 10, 2011.
Appeal 2012-006851
Application 11/419,793
2
array that has multiple detector channels, during scanning of an object that is
to be studied or is used for calibration, obtains object projection data for a
plurality of the multiple detector channels. The object projection data is
used to determine a parameter that corresponds to at least one scanning
geometry characteristic, such as identification of a central ray or the fan
angle of a fan beam from the energy source (Spec. ¶¶ 0014-0017, 0020-
0025). Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
providing an energy source and a corresponding detector array
comprising multiple detector channels;
providing an object;
causing relative movement of at least one of the energy source and the
corresponding detector array with respect to the object about an axis of
rotation;
using the energy source and the corresponding detector array while
causing the relative movement to scan the object to obtain object projection
data;
using the object projection data for a plurality of the multiple detector
channels to determine a parameter as corresponds to at least one scanning
geometry characteristic as corresponds to using the energy source and the
corresponding detector array while causing the relative movement to scan
the object, such that the parameter is determined even when the object
comprises an object other than a calibration object and is being projected to
facilitate a study of the object other than solely as part of calibrating usage
of the energy source and the corresponding detector array.
Appeal Br. 10 (VIII. Claims App’x).
OPINION
The dispositive issue raised by the positions of the Examiner and
Appellant is the interpretation of the claim limitations “using the energy
source and the corresponding detector array [comprising multiple detector
channels] while causing the relative movement to scan the object to obtain
Appeal 2012-006851
Application 11/419,793
3
object projection data” and “using the object projection data for a plurality
of the multiple detector channels to determine a parameter as corresponds to
at least one scanning geometry characteristic” in claim 1. Ans. 4-5, 9-10;
App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2. In interpreting the claim language, we give the
terms the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re
Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (PTO
“construction [must] be ‘consistent with the specification, . . . and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art’”) (citation omitted); In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[D]uring
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.”); In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.”); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. When the applicant states the
meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined
with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the
applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art.”).
We interpret the subject claim language in context and in light of the
Specification as specifying that “the object projection data” is obtained from
at least two of the multiple channels of the detector array. Spec. ¶¶ 0020-
Appeal 2012-006851
Application 11/419,793
4
0025. Thus, we are of the opinion that, as Appellant points out and contrary
to the Examiner’s position, the data obtained by a channel of the array in one
position during rotation of the energy source and the detector array, and the
data obtained from complementary rays in the same path by the same
channel of the detector array when the energy source and the detector array
are in a second position, results from one and the same channel. Spec.
¶ 0036, Fig. 3. Ans. 9-10; Reply Br. 2 (citing Urushiya ¶ 0008, Fig. 6).
Indeed, the Examiner has not established any basis in the Specification for
the interpretation stated in the Answer: “[t]he broadest reasonable
interpretation of using a plurality of channels is met by using one channel of
object projection data and an opposite channel to determine a scanning
geometry characteristic.” Ans. 10.
There is no dispute that Urushiya describes to one skilled in the art an
embodiment in which the method involves using projection data obtained
from a single channel of a multiple detector channel array. Urushiya
¶¶ 0001, 0008, 0030-0045, Figs. 2, 4, 6-8. Ans. 4-5; App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br.
2.
Accordingly, on this record, Urushiya’s described embodiment falls
outside of the method specified in claim 1 as we interpreted this claim
above. Thus, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation, we
reverse the ground of rejection of ground of rejection of claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Urushiya.
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cam