Ex Parte NELLISSEN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 10, 2019

14647141 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/647,141 05/26/2015 Antonius Johannes Maria NELLIS SEN
24737 7590 04/12/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2012P01336WOUS 8652
EXAMINER
SMYTH, ANDREW P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTONIUS JOHANNES l\i[ARIA NELLISSEN,
FRANK VERBAKEL, JOHAN HENDRIK KLOOT\VIJK, and
HERFRJED KJ\RL \VIECZOREK,
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647,141
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 17-23, 27, 29, and 31. 2 We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed November
1, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2.
2 Claims 24--26, 28, and 30 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Office
Action entered June 9, 2017 ("Final Act."), 1.
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a photon counting X-ray detector (independent
claims 17 and 21 ), and a photon counting X-ray detection method
(independent claim 31 ). App. Br. 2-3. Independent claim 17 illustrates the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis added to
highlight contested subject matter:
17. A photon counting X-ray detector unit comprising:
a photon counting semiconductor element for generating
electron-hole pairs in response to incident X-ray photons;
a cathode electrode arranged on a first side of said
semiconductor element facing incited X-ray radiation, said
cathode electrode comprising two interdigitated cathode
elements; and
a pixelated anode electrode arranged on a second side of
said semiconductor element opposite said first side, wherein
said pixelated anode electrode is configured for being coupled
to a readout unit for reading out electrical signals from said
pixelated anode electrode,
wherein said photon counting X-ray detector unit is
configured to drift charge carriers from said cathode electrode
towards said anode electrode in response to an applied bias
voltage between said anode electrode and said cathode
electrode and to temporarily inject charge carriers between
said cathode elements in response to a temporarily applied
injection voltage between said cathode elements.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action, and maintains the rejections in the Examiner's Answer entered
March 9, 2018 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 17-21, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Luke (US 6,218,668 Bl, issued April 17, 2001) in view of
2
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
Bouhnik et al. (US 2011/0155918 Al, published June 30, 2011, hereinafter
"Bouhnik"); and
II. Claims 22, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Like in view ofBouhnik and Matz et al. (US 5,821,539, issued October
13, 1998, hereinafter "Matz").
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 17-23, 27, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set
forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
Independent claims 1 7 and 21 require the recited photon counting X-
ray detector (or detector unit) to be configured to temporarily inject charge
carriers between two interdigitated cathode elements of a cathode electrode
in response to a temporarily applied injection voltage between the cathode
elements. Similarly, independent claim 31 requires the recited photon
counting X-ray detection method to comprise temporarily applying an
injection voltage between two interdigitated cathode elements of a cathode
electrode.
The Examiner finds that Luke discloses photon counting detector unit
20/40 comprising a cathode electrode comprising two interdigitated grid
cathode elements 22, 23. Final Act. 7 (citing Luke Abst., Figs. 2-5). The
Examiner finds that Luke discloses that the signal from only one
interdigitated electrode is read out, and the "signal response is optimized by
changing the relative areas of the two grid [interdigitated] electrodes and the
bias applied across the detector." Final Act. 9-10 (citing Luke Abst.)
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Luke discloses that photon
3
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
counting detector unit 20/40 is configured "to temporarily (i.e., lasting for
only a limited period of time; not permanent)" inject charge carriers between
cathode elements 22, 23 in response to bias voltage V g temporarily applied
during optimization between cathode elements 22, 23. Final Act. 7-10
(citing Luke col. 3, 1. 60-col. 4, 1. 45, col. 5, 11. 10-40, Figs. 2, 3, 5A, and
5B, Abst.). The Examiner determines that because Luke discloses that "the
applied bias to the electrodes in [sic] optimized/temporarily changed during
optimization of the detector, the detector is configured to temporarily change
the voltages applied to the electrodes including the cathode[] electrodes
(22/23 in fig. 5b) which injects charged carriers between the electrodes
22/23." Final Act. 10.
As Appellant correctly argues (Reply Br. 4), however, the Examiner's
assertion that Luke discloses "temporarily" applying injection voltage V g
between cathode elements 22, 23 is inconsistent with how the Specification
describes "temporarily" applying an injection voltage. The Specification
discloses that "the proposed cathode electrode comprises two interdigitated
cathode elements at which, during short intervals, an injection voltage ( e.g.
intermittent voltage pulses or a continuous (pulse-like) voltage wave signal)
is applied. Said injection voltage has the effect that electrons are
temporarily injected into the photon counting semiconductor element."
Spec. 3. The Specification also discloses that "[t]emporal injection of
electrons is initiated by a short voltage pulse between said cathode elements
[], caused e.g. by a short current pulse." Spec. 8.
Consistent with the Specification, "temporarily" applying an injection
voltage as recited in claims 1 7, 21, and 31 thus refers to discontinuously
applying an injection voltage for limited, discrete periods of time. In re
4
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("While the Board must
give the terms their broadest reasonable construction, the construction
cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence."); In re
Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Morris,
127 F.3d at 1054) ("The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the
specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term
adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not
inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds
with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification,
i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the specification."').
As Appellant also correctly argues (App. Br. 4--6), the portions of
Luke cited by the Examiner do not disclose "temporarily applying an
injection voltage," as we have interpreted this phrase consistent with the
Specification. The first section of Luke's disclosure cited by the Examiner
( col. 3, 1. 60-col. 4, 1. 45) describes Luke's Figures 2 and 3, which,
according to Luke, illustrate "prior art" ionization detectors that include
"[t]wo independent and substantially interlaced sets or grids (interdigitated
electrodes) 44, 46." Luke col. 3, 11. 61---66. Luke discloses that "[v]oltage
potentials V(44) and V(46) of positive polarity are applied by voltage sources
52, 54 to terminals 48, 50 of interdigitated electrodes 44, 46 respectively."
Id. at col. 4, 11. 13-16. We find no disclosure in this section of Luke (and
Figures 2 and 3) that indicates, or would have suggested, that voltage
sources 52, 54 apply voltage potentials to interdigitated electrodes 44, 46
"temporarily," or discontinuously for limited, discrete periods of time, as
required by claims 1 7, 21, and 3 1.
5
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
The next section of Luke's disclosure cited by the Examiner (col. 5, 11.
10-40) describes grid detector 20 illustrated in Figures 5A and 5B, and
discloses, in pertinent part, that detector 20 includes interdigitated grid
electrodes 22, 23, and a "bias Vg (e.g. 10-100 V) from source 25 is []
applied between the two grid electrodes 22, 23 to ensure that these electrons
will only be collected on one of the grids, grid 22, referred to as the
collecting grid." Luke col. 5, 11. 25-29. We find no disclosure in this
section of Luke (and Figures 5A and 5B) that indicates, or would have
suggested, that voltage source 25 applies bias voltage to interdigitated grid
electrodes 22, 23 "temporarily," or discontinuously for limited, discrete
periods of time, as required by our interpretation of claims 17, 21, and 31.
The Examiner also cites Luke's abstract, which discloses in pertinent
part that the signal from only one interdigitated grid electrode of Luke's
ionization detector is read out, and the signal response is optimized by
changing the relative areas of the two grid electrodes and the bias applied
across the detector. We again find no disclosure in this section of Luke that
describes, or would have suggested, applying an injection voltage between
the cathode elements "temporarily," or discontinuously for limited, discrete
periods of time, as required by claims 17, 21, and 31 as we have interpreted
these claims.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner cites a portion of
Luke's disclosure in the Answer (Luke col. 8, 11. 35--46) that describes
experiments demonstrating that adjustment of grid area and optimization of
detector bias allowed the charge induction of Luke's detector to be
controlled. Luke col. 8, 11. 22-23, 36--46. The different bias voltages
6
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
applied in these experiments were (1) Vb=370V3 and Vg=30V, and (2)
Vb=500V and Vg=40V. Id. at col. 8, 11. 44--46. Again, however, we find no
disclosure in this section of Luke that describes, or would have suggested,
applying an injection voltage between the cathode elements "temporarily,"
or discontinuously for limited, discrete periods of time, as required by claims
1 7, 21, and 31 as we have interpreted these claims.
Nonetheless, the Examiner asserts in the Answer that bias voltage V g
applied between interdigitated grid electrodes 22 and 23 as disclosed in Luke
"is temporary in that, during Luke's optimization the biasing voltages are
changed/altered whilst the detector settings/voltages are optimized." Ans. 5.
The Examiner asserts that as the applied bias voltage value is changed
during optimization, the charged carrier total is also changing along with the
changing applied bias voltage, such that the number of charge carriers
generated is changing, and therefore a certain number of those charge
carriers "are temporarily present." Id. The Examiner determines that,
consequently, "some number of the charge carriers are temporarily injected,
at least, during optimization." Id.
Claims 1 7, 21, and 31, when considered in light of Appellant's
Specification as discussed above, do not require charge carriers to be
"temporarily present," as implied by the Examiner's assertions in the
Answer, however. Although Luke may disclose changing or altering the
bias voltage applied between interdigitated grid electrodes 22 and 23 during
optimization of the signal response of Luke's detector as the Examiner
3 Vb represents the bias voltage from source 24 applied between full contact
electrode 21 and grid electrodes 22, 23, and ( as discussed above) V g
represents bias from source 25 applied between grid electrodes 22, 23. Luke
col. 5, 11. 19-21; Fig. 5B.
7
Appeal2018-005443
Application 14/647, 141
asserts, changing or altering an applied bias voltage does not constitute
applying a bias voltage "temporarily," or discontinuously for limited,
discrete periods of time. And although the number of charge carriers
injected may change when the applied bias voltage is changed during
optimization, this again does not constitute applying a bias voltage
"temporarily," or discontinuously for limited, discrete periods of time.
Accordingly, on this appeal record, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Luke discloses or would have
suggested temporarily applying an injection voltage between two
interdigitated cathode elements of a cathode electrode, as required by
independent claims 1 7, 21, and 31. We accordingly do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 21, and 31, and of claims 18-20, 22, 23,
27, and 29, which each depend from claim 17, 21, or 31, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 17-23, 27, 29, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8