10881950 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2009)

Ex Parte Tkaczyk et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 23, 2009

10881950 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOHN ERIC TKACZYK, WILLIAM EDWARD BURDICK JR, and NARESH KESAVAN RAO ____________ Appeal 2009-003017 Application 10/881,950 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: September 23, 2009 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-003017 Application 10/881,950 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-18. (Appeal Brief filed February 5, 2008, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants describe a detector module for use in an imaging system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A detector for use in an imaging system, the detector module comprising: a sensor array configured for receiving X-ray signals and converting the X-ray signals to corresponding electrical signals; an electronic device configured for converting the electrical signals to corresponding digital signals; and a switching circuit that electrically and mechanically couples the sensor array to the electronic device, wherein the switching circuit is configured for routing the electrical signals from the sensor array to the electronic device and the detector module is formed as an integrated structure. THE REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: McGrath US 2002/0126795 A1 Sep. 12, 2002 The Examiner rejected claim 1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McGrath. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McGrath. The Examiner found that McGrath discloses a detector module with a sensor array, an electronic device, and a switching circuit that form an Appeal 2009-003017 Application 10/881,950 3 integrated structure. (Examiner’s Answer entered April 2, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,” 3). Appellants do not dispute that McGrath discloses a sensor array, an electronic device, and a switching circuit. (App. Br. 13). Rather, Appellants contend that McGrath’s disclosed connections fail to constitute a detector module that is an integrated structure. (App. Br. 11 and 13). ISSUE Have Appellants shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that McGrath discloses a detector module formulated as an integrated structure? FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. The Examiner’s Answer states: [The] Examiner identified, within the McGrath et al. reference, a detector module and imaging system comprising at least one sensor array, switching circuit and electronic device as well as physical connections 134 and 138. [The] Examiner surmised that not only did McGrath et al., disclose the recited elements of the pending claims, but that the physical inter-connections between components illustrated an integrated structure, wherein all elements are physically and electrically connected to transfer information either to/ from each component. [The] Examiner has taken the position that the physical inter-connections of the components, resulted in an integrated structure. [The] Examiner notes that the claims do not provide any limitations to define conditions for an integrated structure other than mechanical and electrical connectivity. Appeal 2009-003017 Application 10/881,950 4 (Ans. 5-6). PRINCIPLES OF LAW During examination, claims terms must be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Icon Health and Fitness, 496 F.3d at 1379. “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). ANALYSIS Appellants do not separately argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed claim 1, which contains claim limitations representative of the arguments made by Appellants pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).1 Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s reasonable position that, in giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in 1 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007). Appeal 2009-003017 Application 10/881,950 5 light of the Specification, the connections in McGrath form a detector module with an integrated structure. (FF 1). Appellants point to the Specification to contend that the recited detector module is different and provides advantages not obtained in McGrath’s detector module. (Ans. 10, 11, and 13) However, we decline to adopt Appellants’ narrow construction of “integrated,” which would require importing limitations that are not recited in the claims from the Specification. In addition, Appellants have not provided any evidence that in light of the Specification, the term “integrated” would be understood by those skilled in the art to exclude McGrath’s detector module. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Regarding the rejection of claim 9, Appellants rely on the dependency of claim 9 for patentability. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that McGrath discloses a detector module formulated as an integrated structure. ORDER We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McGrath. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McGrath. Appeal 2009-003017 Application 10/881,950 6 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)(v). AFFIRMED PL initial: sld GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GLOBAL RESEARCH PATENT DOCKET RM. BLDG. K1-4A59 NISKAYUNA, NY 12309