Ex Parte Kump et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2013

12029597 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH S. KUMP and JAMES Z. LIU
____________________

Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
20–39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
The claimed subject matter relates to calibration of x-ray detectors
(Spec. ¶1).
Claim 20 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
20. An x-ray detector comprising:
a scintillator configured to emit light in response to
reception of radiation;
a detector element array configured to output
radiographic data and having a plurality of detector elements,
each detector element configured to detect light from the
scintillator and provide an electrical signal that may be
processed for image reconstruction;
a temperature sensor to provide feedback as to a
temperature of the detector element array during a data
acquisition of a plurality of radiographic data;
a processor programmed to:
access a plurality of temperature-dependent bad
pixel maps, each temperature-dependent map identifies at
least one detector element that is presumed to output
corrupted radiographic data at a specified temperature;
compare the plurality of temperature-dependent
bad pixel maps to the temperature of the detector element
array to identify one of the plurality temperature-
dependent bad pixel maps corresponding to the
temperature of the detector element array;
apply the one of the plurality temperature-
dependent bad pixel maps to the plurality of radiographic
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

3
data to exclude radiographic data presumed corrupted;
and
apply a conversion factor correction specific to the
temperature of the detector element array to the
radiographic data.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gordon US 5,867,553 Feb. 2, 1999
Mendis
Kerrien
Ducourant
US 2002/0005904 A1
US 2002/0163996 A1
US 2002/0195567 A1
Jan. 17, 2002
Nov. 7, 2002
Dec. 26, 2002

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 20, 21, 23–32, and 35–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gordon, Mendis, and Ducourant (Ans. 3–8, 9–
10).
Claims 22, 33, 34, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gordon, Mendis, Ducourant, and Kerrien (Ans. 8–9, 12).
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gordon, Kerrien, and Ducourant (Ans. 10–12).

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend:
1. the Examiner failed to make a prima face case of obviousness for
claims 20 and 35, as well as claims that depend therefrom, by providing
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

4
insufficient discussion or reasoning supporting the citation of Ducourant
(App. Br. 4, 23);
2. the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20, 23, 27, 35, and 39, as
well as claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Mendis does not teach temperature-dependent bad-pixel maps (App. Br. 7,
16, 18, 24, 34; see also Reply Br. 7, 14);
3. the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20, 28, and 35, as well as
claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Mendis
does not teach or suggest exclusion of data presumed corrupted (App. Br. 8–
9, 20–21, 24; see also Reply Br. 9, 12);
4. the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20, 27, and 35, as well as
claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because one skilled
in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Mendis and
Gordon (App. Br. 11–12, 19, 24–25; see also Reply Br. 8–9);
5. the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 22, 30, 32, 37, and 38,
as well as claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Gordon does not teach a database of gain correction maps (App. Br. 13–15,
21–23, 26–27, 30–31; see also Reply Br. 10, 11);
6. the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 because Gordon does not
teach a default temperature range (App. Br. 17);
7. the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 and 33 because Kerrien
does not teach or suggest interpolation between gain correction maps (App.
Br. 27, 29; see also Reply Br. 11–12); and
8. the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 because one skilled in the
art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kerrien and
Gordon (App. Br. 28).
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, and have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.

Contention 1
With respect to the first contention, we disagree that the Examiner has
erred.
“[A]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of
production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference
or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner
to meet the notice requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). While presented concisely, the Examiner
identifies specific teachings of Ducourant relied on as a basis for finding the
application of a conversion factor correction as recited in the claims (see
Ans. 5). We therefore conclude that the Examiner has both set forth the
basis of the rejection and identified the references relied upon in a
sufficiently articulate and informative manner to meet the notice
requirement.
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

6

Contention 2
With respect to the second contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred.
During patent examination, claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in applying a construction of a
“temperature-dependent bad pixel map” as “a set of organized data units
wherein each organized data unit comprises at least the following related
information: temperature Ti, pixel location Pi, and value Bi (that is applied
to determine those pixels presumed to be bad)” (Ans. 14).
We disagree with Appellants’ assertion that “Mendis does not teach or
suggest that any temperature is correlated with, or specified to, a soft bad
pixel map” (App. Br. 8). Mendis teaches that soft bad pixels indicate that
the pixels appear defective only under certain operating conditions,
including temperature (Mendis ¶20). Mendis further teaches an embodiment
in which a correction for such soft bad pixels is applied when a difference
between the soft-bad-pixel value and a replacement value exceeds a
temperature-dependent “predetermined value” (id. ¶¶ 22, 23). As such, we
find that Mendis teaches a set of organized data units in which each
organized data unit comprises temperature, pixel-location, and correction
values.

Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

7
Contention 3
With respect to the third contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred.
Appellants argue that Mendis teaches that “hard bad pixels are
‘known’ to be defective under all operating conditions” (App. Br. 7) and that
soft bad pixels are “tested to determine if the acquired data is indeed
corrupted” (App. Br. 8, emphasis by Appellants).
First, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that an analysis of electric
signals output by a photodetector without knowledge of the actual incident
radiation intensity can only presumptively determine whether a particular
radiographic datum is corrupted (Ans. 25; see also Ans. 12–13).
Second, Appellants overstate what Mendis teaches. Although Mendis
teaches that hard bad pixels are always replaced regardless of their value or
operating conditions (Mendis ¶19), such a methodology is consistent with a
presumption that the hard bad pixels are defective and does not suggest that
the hard bad pixels are known to be defective. Similarly, Mendis teaches
that soft bad pixels are replaced only when their values differ “significantly”
from defined replacement values (Mendis ¶19). The procedure of
comparing the soft-bad-pixel value to the replacement value and of thus
determining whether there is a “significant” difference according to a
temperature-dependent “predetermined value” (Mendis ¶¶ 22, 23) is
consistent with a presumption that the soft bad pixels are defective under
such conditions and does not amount to a conclusive test of such
defectiveness.

Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

8
Contention 4
With respect to the fourth contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred.
Gordon teaches an x-ray detector that includes a channel variation
compensator 114 that, among other things, applies a compensation for the
temperature of each pixel comprised by the detector (Gordon, col. 13, ll. 49–
52; col. 14, ll. 26–58). Mendis teaches a correction algorithm that
compensates for temperature-dependent pixel defects (Mendis ¶20). The
Examiner reasons that it would be obvious to one of skill in the art for
Mendis’s correction algorithm to be applied by Gordon’s channel variation
compensator to provide further compensation for temperature-dependent
defects (Ans. 5). We agree with this articulated reasoning, which is based
on sufficient rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

Contention 5
With respect to the fifth contention, we disagree that the Examiner has
erred.
Under the standard in which claim terms are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in construing the terms “gain correction
map,” “gain calibration map,” and “gain map” as “a set of organized data
units wherein each organized data unit comprises at least the following
related information: temperature Ti, pixel location Pi, and value Gi (that is
applied in a conventional manner to the imaging datum at pixel location Pi in
order to reduce artifacts in the imaging data)” (Ans. 13–14).
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

9
Gordon teaches a “bank of look up tables” that include gain-correction
values as a function of temperature for each pixel (Gordon, col. 14, ll. 25–
58). As such, we find that Gordon teaches a set of organized data units in
which each organized data unit comprises temperature, pixel-location, and
gain-correction values. Appellants’ argument that Gordon’s bank of look up
tables is not a database of gain correction maps because of the manner in
which the information is organized (see App. Br. 14–15) imposes too narrow
a construction of the term “map,” particularly since Appellants have
identified no narrowing definition of the term in the application as filed.

Contention 6
With respect to the sixth contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument that “nowhere in Gordon is a
default temperature range taught or suggested” (App. Br. 17). Rather, we
agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that a “default” temperature range is
simply a label for a particular temperature range within a plurality of
temperature ranges (Ans. 30). Since Gordon teaches the selection of a
temperature-dependent map from the database, we conclude, in agreement
with the Examiner, that Gordon reasonably teaches or suggest comparing a
detector array temperature to each one of a plurality of temperature ranges
that includes a default temperature range in order to select a temperature-
dependent map (see Ans. 30).

Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

10
Contention 7
With respect to the seventh contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred.
Kerrien discloses the use of interpolation in image-processing
calibration to correct distortions in radiological images (Kerrien ¶2, 13–15).
Appellants observe that Kerrien specifically teaches interpolation between
spatial distortion fields (App. Br. 27, citing Kerrien ¶¶ 39, 85), arguing that
Kerrien does not teach or suggest gain maps or, more specifically,
interpolation between gain maps (App. Br. 27). We are unpersuaded by this
argument because it attacks Kerrien individually when the Examiner has, in
fact, relied on the combination of Kerrien with other references. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Kerrien’s teaching value as identified by
the Examiner is the use of interpolation to obtain specific calibration data
from a sequence of discrete calibration data (Ans. 8, citing Kerrien ¶¶ 13–
15).

Contention 8
With respect to the eighth contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred.
Appellants argue that “Gordon teaches away from interpolating
between two gain correction maps to obtain an appropriate gain correction
map because Gordon suggests a non-interpolated gain map is created for
each operating temperature” (App. Br. 28, emphasis added). We disagree
with this characterization of Gordon. Rather, we find that Gordon teaches
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

11
more generically that in operation, the compensator applies a signal
“representative of the temperature of the detector array” to the temperature
variation tables to generate the correction factors (Gordon, col. 14, ll. 37–
42). We further find, in agreement with the Examiner, that one of skill in
the art would reasonably use interpolation like that taught by Kerrien in
applying the representative signal to the temperature variation tables.
Furthermore, a prior-art reference does not teach away from the
claimed subject matter unless the prior-art reference also criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Since Appellants have identified no
such criticism, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude the following:
(1) the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 20, 21, 23–32, and
35–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gordon, Mendis, and
Ducourant;
(2) the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 22, 33, 34, and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gordon, Mendis, Ducourant,
and Kerrien; and
(3) the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gordon, Kerrien, and Ducourant.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20–39 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-000057
Application 12/029,597

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc