10955409 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

Ex Parte Zelakiewicz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 2013

10955409 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 10/955,409 09/30/2004 Scott Stephen Zelakiewicz 148475-1/YOD (GERD:0190) 4070 41838 7590 01/02/2014 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER P. O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER TANINGCO, MARCUS H 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 SCOTT STEPHEN ZELAKIEWICZ, CLIFFORD BUENO, GREGORY ALAN MOHR, PAUL FRANCIS FITZGERALD, FORREST FRANK HOPKINS, and AARON JUDY COUTURE ____________ Appeal 2011-001197 Application 10/955,409 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001197 Application 10/955,409 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-35, and 37-45. Claims 6, 9, and 36 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. An imaging system, comprising: a source of radiation; a detector unit configured to generate an image signal, wherein one or more properties of the image signal are determined based on an incident radiation on the detector and on one or more detector operational parameters; and detector adjustment circuitry configured to dynamically adjust the one or more detector operational parameters based on the image signal to improve a signal-to-noise ratio of the image signal. Prior Art Mulder US 5,513,239 Apr. 30, 1996 Karellas US 2002/0196899 A1 Dec. 26, 2002 Patel US 6,529,757 B1 Mar. 4, 2003 Petrick US 2003/0185342 A1 Oct. 2, 2003 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 19-28, 30-32, 35, 37-40, and 42-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick. Claims 16 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick and Karellas. Appeal 2011-001197 Application 10/955,409 3 Claims 18 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick and Patel. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick and Mulder. ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 19-28, 30-32, 35, 37-40, and 42-45 Appellants contend Petrick does not teach how adjusting offsets maximizes the signal-to-noise ratio. App. Br. 10-14. Claim 1 does not recite maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio. Claim 1 recites “detector adjustment circuitry to dynamically adjust the one or more detector operational parameters based on the image signal to improve a signal-to- noise ratio of the image signal” (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Petrick teaches adjustment values to compensate for the noise caused by charge retention offsets, which “improve[s] a signal-to-noise ratio of the image signal” within the meaning of claim 1. See Ans. 14. Appellants respond that compensating for the charge retention offsets may not impact noise, if another source of noise is reduced by the charge retention offsets. Reply Br. 4. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show the charge retention offsets addressed by Petrick reduce other sources of noise. We agree with the Examiner that the charge retention offsets are a source of noise, and compensating for the charge retention offsets improves signal-to-noise ratio. Appeal 2011-001197 Application 10/955,409 4 Appellants also contend Petrick teaches using a phantom measurement before the incidence of radiation, rather than a normal signal read-out of an image based on incident radiation on the detector as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 6. Claim 1 recites “a detector unit configured to generate an image signal . . . based on incident radiation.” The phantom measurements determine the photoconductive charge retained by the detector array. The retained photoconductive charge is based on incident radiation. Appellants do not provide a definition of “an image signal . . . based on incident radiation” that excludes the measurement signal for the photoconductive charge retained by the detector array taught by Petrick. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 19-28, 30-32, 35, 37-40, and 42-45 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 16 and 29 Appellants contend the Examiner did not provide an adequate reason for combining the teachings of Petrick and Karellas. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-9. The Examiner finds the binning technique of Karellas provides the benefit of improving signal-to-noise ratio. The Examiner concludes the binning of Karellas, when used in the imaging device of Petrick, would improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the image. Ans. 15, citing Karellas, ¶¶ 68-70. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that applying a binning technique to the imaging device of Petrick was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Appeal 2011-001197 Application 10/955,409 5 We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 18 and 41 Appellants contend the Examiner did not provide an adequate reason for combining the teachings of Petrick and Patel. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner finds adding the contrast control parameters of Patel to the imaging system of Petrick provides the benefit of increasing sharpness, depth, or brightness of the image. Ans. 15. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that adding contrast control parameters to the imaging device of Petrick was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. (Leapfrog Enters. at 1162) We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 33 and 34 Appellants contend the Examiner did not provide an adequate reason to combine the teachings of Petrick and Mulder. App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 10-12. The Examiner finds using the mean value of the image signal to improve image contrast and brightness provides the benefit of limiting the radiation dose. Ans. 16. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that using the mean value of an image signal to improve image contrast and brightness was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Leapfrog Enters. at 1162. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2011-001197 Application 10/955,409 6 DECISION The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 19-28, 30-32, 35, 37-40, and 42-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick is affirmed. The rejection of claims 16 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick and Karellas is affirmed. The rejection of claims 18 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick and Patel is affirmed. The rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrick and Mulder 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED ELD