Ex Parte Man et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 13, 2008

10744027 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 13, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRUNO DE MAN and SAMIT BASU
____________

Appeal 2008-5007
Application 10/744,027
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: November 13, 2008
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-34, which are all
of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2008-4232
Application 09/917,633

The Invention
The Appellants claim a system, method and computer program for
imaging a volume. Claims 1 and 12 are illustrative:
1. A CT imaging system, comprising:
an X-ray source comprising two or more axially-offset emission
points along the z-axis, each emission point being configured to emit a
stream of radiation, wherein each stream of radiation is substantially conical
when traversing a volume to be imaged;
a detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements, wherein
each detector element may generate one or more signals in response to the
respective streams of radiation;
a collimator configured to collimate the respective streams of
radiation such that concurrently-emitted streams of radiation do not overlap
on the detector array;
a system controller configured to control the X-ray source and the
collimator and to acquire the one or more signals from the plurality of
detector elements via a data acquisition system;
a computer system configured to receive the one or more signals and
to process the one or more signals to generate one or more images; and
an operator workstation configured to display the one or more images.

12. A method for imaging a volume, comprising:
concurrently emitting X-rays from two or more emission points
axially-offset along a z-axis, wherein the X-ray beams from each emission
point traverse a volume to be imaged as a substantially conical beam; and
collimating the concurrently emitted X-rays such that X-rays from
more than one emission point do not concurrently impact a region of a
detector array.

The References
Suzuki 6,363,134 B1 Mar. 26, 2002
Malamud 6,760,399 B2 Jul. 6, 2004
(filed Apr. 5, 2002)

2
Appeal 2008-4232
Application 09/917,633

The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 12-23 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Malamud, and claims 1-11 and 24-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Malamud in view of Suzuki.1,2
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
Rejection of claims 12-23 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Malamud
The Appellants do not separately argue any claim (Br. 8-10; Reply
Br. 1-5). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 12.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Malamud discloses each element of the claimed
invention?
Findings of Fact
Malamud discloses a computerized tomographic (CT) system
comprising a plurality of X-ray sources mounted around a patient at different
z (axial) locations with detector arrays opposite each of the sources (col. 2,
ll. 27-32). The X-ray sources emit fan beams of X-radiation that can be

1 The Examiner also relies upon U.S. 3,752,989 to Motz et al.,
U.S. 6,259,765 B1 to Baptist, U.S. 6,922,457 B2 to Nagata et al., and
B.D. Cullity and S.R. Stock, Elements of X-Ray Diffraction 4-11 (Prentice
Hall, 3rd ed. 2001) (Ans. 11). Because those references are not included in
the statement of the rejection, they are not properly before us. See In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we have not
considered those references in reaching our decision.
2 A rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, 19, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3).
3
Appeal 2008-4232
Application 09/917,633
overlapping, contiguous or spaced apart with respect to each other in the
axial direction (col. 3, ll. 18-25; col. 4, ll. 9-11; col. 8, ll. 19-23; Fig. 6). The
fan beams may be cone beams (col. 4, l. 13). The X-ray beams are conical
when they traverse a patient (col. 6, ll. 53-55; Fig. 2).
Analysis
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not cited to any portion of
Malamud that discloses collimation to prevent X-ray beams from
concurrently impacting a region of the detector array (Br. 9; Reply Br. 2).
Malamud, the Appellants argue, uses spacing, not collimation, to prevent the
X-ray beams from overlapping at a detector array (Br. 10; Reply Br. 4).
Malamud’s conical beams necessarily must have been collimated to
have their conical shape. As disclosed and illustrated by Malamud, the
conical beams can be spaced such that they do not overlap (col. 3, ll. 18-25;
col. 4, ll. 9-11; col. 8, ll. 19-23; Fig. 6).
The Appellants state that the use of collimation to produce conical
beams is not at issue (Br. 9; Reply Br. 2). The Appellants argue that
Malamud does not disclose collimating X-ray beams that have been formed
into a conical shape prior to collimation (Reply Br. 2-4).
The Appellants’ claim 12 (and also the other claims) does not require
collimation of conical X-ray beams. Claim 12 requires collimating X-ray
beams such that they are substantially conical when they traverse a volume
to be imaged and do not concurrently impact a region of a detector array, not
collimating beams that are substantially conical before they are collimated.
4
Appeal 2008-4232
Application 09/917,633

Malamud’s X-ray beams are conical when they traverse a patient and may
be arranged such that they do not overlap at a detector array (col. 3, ll. 18-
25; col. 4, ll. 9-11; col. 6, ll. 53-55; col. 8, ll. 19-23; Figs. 2, 6). Moreover,
during patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, as the claim language would
have been read by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Appellants’ claim interpretation is
inconsistent with the Appellants’ Specification which discloses that the
collimator defines a generally cone shaped beam, not that a cone shaped
beam is collimated.3
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Malamud discloses each element of the claimed
invention.
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 24-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Malamud in view of Suzuki
The Appellants do not separately argue any claim (Br. 10-13; Reply
Br. 5-6). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

3 “The collimator 14 typically defines the size and shape of the one or more
streams of radiation 16 that pass into a region in which a subject, such as a
human patient 18 is positioned. A stream of radiation 16 may be generally
cone shaped, depending on the configuration of the detector array, discussed
below, as well as the desired method of data acquisition” (Spec. 4:26-30).
5
Appeal 2008-4232
Application 09/917,633
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied references would have rendered the claimed
invention prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?
Analysis
The Appellants argue that Suzuki does not remedy the deficiency in
Malamud with respect to limitations in claim 1 that are comparable to those
in claim 12 discussed above regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5).
As discussed above with respect to the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the deficiency in Malamud argued by the Appellants
does not exist.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied references would have rendered the claimed
invention prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 12-23 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Malamud, and claims 1-11 and 24-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Malamud
in view of Suzuki are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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

6
Appeal 2008-4232
Application 09/917,633

tc
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
c/o FLETCHER YODER
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
7