Ex Parte HoltDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 201411419793 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation