Ex Parte Vaquero et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 201312239331 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013) 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. 12/239,331 09/26/2008 Juan Jose Vaquero 0751.100.CON 3231 36139 7590 01/02/2014 EPSTEIN & GERKEN 1901 RESEARCH BOULEVARD SUITE 340 ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/02/2014 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 JUAN JOSE VAQUERO, JURGEN SEIDEL, and MICHAEL V. GREEN ____________ Appeal 2011-008609 Application 12/239,331 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008609 Application 12/239,331 2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1 and 13 as well as dependent claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) as anticipated by Heinrichs (U. Heinrichs et al., Design Optimization of the PMT-ClearPET Prototypes Based on Simulation Studies With GEANT3, 2003 IEEE NUCLEAR SCI. SYMP. CONF. REC. 682.)1 and of remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heinrichs alone or in combination with additional prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appellants claim a tomography scanner for obtaining an image of a body comprising a plurality of axially aligned detector rings 12 forming a cylindrical detector array 11 with an axial gap G between each axially adjacent pair of the detector rings (independent claim 1, Figs. 1A-1C; see also remaining independent claim 13). Further details regarding the claimed subject matter are set forth in the following copy of representative independent claim 1, which is taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 1. A tomography scanner for obtaining an image of a body, comprising 1 The Examiner and Appellants disagree as to whether the present application should be accorded benefit of the filing date of a prior provisional application and concomitantly whether Heinrichs is available as prior art. We need not resolve this disagreement because we share Appellants' position that Heinrichs, even if available as prior art, fails to anticipate the independent claims on appeal. Appeal 2011-008609 Application 12/239,331 3 a plurality of axially aligned detector rings forming a cylindrical detector array around a body to be imaged with a well-defined, intentional axial gap between each axially adjacent pair of said detector rings, each of said gaps being axially and circumferentially continuous between each axially adjacent pair of said detector rings, each of said gaps creating a cylindrical dead space between each axially adjacent pair of said detector rings, each of said detector rings including a plurality of detector modules aligned with one another transaxially throughout said detector ring, each of said plurality of detector modules comprising a matrix of detector elements, each of said detector elements having an axial dimension, each of said gaps having an axial dimension between each axially adjacent pair of said detector rings purposely selected to be greater than or equal to said axial dimension of said detector elements, said detector rings producing signals in response to radiation emanating from the body in three dimensions; and a data processor responsive to said signals to produce tomographic image reconstruction throughout the axial field-of- view including said gaps. All of the rejections before us are premised on the Examiner's finding that Heinrichs discloses "a plurality of axially aligned detector rings (e.g., see the four 'detector rings' as illustrated in a portion of Fig. 2 . . .)" (Ans. 6; see also id. at 8). Appellants argue that "one with ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention would interpret 'detector ring' as a complete and structurally independent annular structure and not an annular segment of a complete detector ring structure" (Br. 14). Appellants further argue that Heinrichs discloses a single annular ring structure having four individual annular ring segments and that "no [such] individual annular ring segment . . . would reasonably be considered a 'detector ring' by one of ordinary skill in the field of the invention because all four annular or circumferential ring Appeal 2011-008609 Application 12/239,331 4 segments are structurally united to one another to form the complete, annular detector ring structure" (id. at 15). Appellants cite several disclosures in the applied reference as support for their argument that Heinrichs discloses a single annular ring structure having four individual annular ring segments (id. at 15-16 citing, for example, the Heinrichs disclosure "'[a]mong several single-ring designs the CCC favorites (sic) two four-ring ClearPET systems'" (683) and the Heinrichs reference in Figure 3 to "an opened detector ring" (emphasis added)). A preponderance of evidence supports Appellants' argument that the Heinrichs reference is directed to a single annular ring structure having four individual annular ring segments. The Examiner is correct that Figure 2 of this disclosure refers to these four segments as "4 rings." However, one with ordinary skill in this art would consider such reference to be the result of imprecise language as evidenced by Heinrichs' use of quotation marks in referring to the "number of PMTs per 'ring'" (685, right col., 3rd ¶). In responding to Appellants' argument, the Examiner states that "the features upon which appellant relies (i.e., each axially adjacent pair of said detector rings are not structurally united) are not recited in the rejected claim(s)" (Ans. ¶ bridging 18-19). This statement does not focus on the appropriate inquiry. The appropriate question is whether one with ordinary skill in this art would interpret the claimed plurality of detector rings as corresponding to the plural ring segments of Heinrichs' single detector ring. "During examination, 'claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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.'" In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Appeal 2011-008609 Application 12/239,331 5 Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Examiner has not provided the appeal record with support for the proposition that it would be reasonable and consistent with Appellants' Specification to interpret the plural detector rings of the appealed claims as corresponding to plural ring segments of a single detector ring. On the other hand, Appellants have presented a convincing line of reasoning that one with ordinary skill in this art would not have so interpreted the appealed claims (see again Br. 14-15). For the above stated reasons, the record before us does not support the Examiner's finding that Heinrichs discloses a plurality of detector rings as required by Appellants' independent claims. It follows that we will not sustain any of the Examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation