HERRMANN, Christoph

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2019

15502788 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2019)

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.
15/502,788 02/09/2017 Christoph HERRMANN 2014P00483WOUS 9098
24737 7590 10/28/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
FAYE, MAMADOU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPH HERRMANN

Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–5, 12, 13, and 20.2, 3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 and as listed in the Application Data Sheet filed February 9,
2017 (namely, “KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.”). The Appellant is also
identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed April 27, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”) at 2).
2 Claims 6–11 and 14–19 were also subject to final rejection (Final Action
entered December 11, 2017 (“Final Act.”) at 6, 9, 13), but the rejections
against these claims have been withdrawn (Examiner’s Answer entered
September 11, 2018 (“Ans.”) at 3).
3 See Appeal Br. 4–5, 6–7; Reply Brief filed November 7, 2018 (“Reply
Br.”) at 2–4; Final Act. 3–6, 10–12; Ans. 2–3.
Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a detector array signal
processor of an imaging system (i.e., a computed tomography (CT) scanner)
including a discriminator and to an associated method (Specification filed
February 9, 2017 (“Spec.”) at 1, ll. 3–5; 2, l. 19–3, l. 20). An exemplary
discriminator is illustrated in Figure 2 (some annotations added), which we
reproduce from the subject application, as follows:

Figure 2 above depicts an example of a discriminator 118 including, inter
alia: a plurality of comparators 2021–2023, each including a first input
terminal 2041–2043, a second input terminal 2061–2063, and an output
Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

3
terminal 2081–2083; and a plurality of reference signal generators 2121–2123,
each in electrical communication with the second input terminals 2061–2063,
respectively (Spec. 6, ll. 19–34). The Specification explains that each
reference signal generator 2121–2123 “can generate, alternatively, one of a
plurality of different reference signals, independent of the other reference
signal generators” and that “[t]he reference signals, similar to the pulse
generated by the pulse shaper 116, are electrical signals such as voltages,
currents, etc.” (id. at 7, ll. 1–4 (bolding and italicization added)).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A detector array signal processor of an imaging system,
comprising:
a discriminator, including:
a set of comparators;
a window width generator that is configured to
generate a window width for a window based spectrum
measurement; and
a set of reference signal generators, each
corresponding to a different one of the comparators, which are
configured to generate different reference signals;
wherein, in response to the discriminator being in a
window based spectrum measurement mode, a first reference
signal generator for a first comparator is configured to generate
a first reference signal that is supplied to the first comparator and
that is added with the window width to create a second reference
signal, which is to be supplied to the second comparator,
wherein the first comparator is configured to compare a
peak height of a pulse indicative of an energy of detected
radiation with the first reference signal and to produce a first
output indicating which of the peak height or the first reference
signal is greater; and
wherein the second comparator is configured to compare
the peak height with the second reference signal and to produce
Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

4
a second output indicating which of the peak height or the second
reference signal is greater.
(Appeal Br. 8 (emphases to the disputed limitations added)).
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner maintains several rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
follows:
A. Claims 1–3 as unpatentable over Xie et al.4 (“Xie”) and Kawai;5
B. Claims 4, 5, and 12 as unpatentable over Xie, Kawai, and Pelc;6
and
C. Claims 13 and 20 over Xie, Kawai, Pelc, and Kim et al.7
(“Kim”).
(Ans. 2–3; Final Act. 3–6, 10–12).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Grouping of Claims
Except for claim 20, the Appellant relies on the same arguments for
all claims on appeal, focusing only on independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4–5,
6–7). Therefore, we decide this appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 20 only,
with claims 2–5, 12, and 13 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

4 US 2005/0247879 A1, published November 10, 2005.
5 US 5,200,625, issued April 6, 1993.
6 US 2015/0168570 A1, published June 18, 2015.
7 US 2014/0185760 A1, published July 3, 2014.
Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

5
2. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Xie describes a discriminator including a set
of comparators, a window width generator, and a set of reference signal
generators configured to generate different reference signals (Final Act. 3–
4). The Examiner finds that Xie is “silent” with respect to the limitations
recited in claim 1’s first “wherein” clause (id. at 4). To bridge this gap, the
Examiner relies on Kawai and then concludes that a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Xie and Kawai in the
manner claimed by the Inventor (id.).
3. The Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings concerning
Kawai’s teachings or the reasoning in support of the combination of Kawai
with Xie (Appeal Br. 4). Rather, the Appellant’s argument is that “Xie
discloses a single voltage source VO that generates the voltage VO for all of
the comparators 204-1 – 204-5” (bolding added for drawing reference
numerals) and, therefore, “Xie does not disclose or suggest a set of voltage
source generators VO, each corresponding to a different one of the
comparators” (id.).
4. Opinion
The Appellant’s arguments lack discernible merit and, therefore, fail
to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Contrary to the Appellant’s belief, claim 1 does not require multiple
voltage sources. Instead, claim 1 merely requires “a set of reference signal
generators, each corresponding to a different one of the comparators”
(Appeal Br. 8). Indeed, the current Specification broadly describes the
Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

6
reference signals to be “electric signals such as voltages, currents, etc.”
(Spec. 7. ll. 3–4). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, we find that Xie describes the disputed limitations
highlighted above in reproduced claim 1. In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Specifically, Xie describes a device for use in digitizing gamma ray
energy in positron emission tomography (PET) including, inter alia, a
plurality of comparators, each being coupled to receive a PET voltage pulse
on a first input and a first reference voltage on a second input (Xie ¶¶ 2, 9).
Xie’s Figure 5 (some additional annotations added) is illustrative and is
reproduced, as follows:

Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

7
Xie’s Figure 5 above depicts a digitizer 200 including, inter alia, a set of
five comparators 204-1–204-5, wherein variable or non-variable resistors
202-1–202-5 are coupled in series between an input for receiving the
reference voltage VO and ground (id. ¶ 44–47). As the Examiner finds (Ans.
2), Xie teaches that five reference voltages Vl, Vi, Vk, Vj, and Vm are
generated using simple resistive voltage dividers formed by the series
connection of resistors 202-1–202-5 to the second inputs of the comparators
204-1–204-5 (Xie ¶ 46; see also id. Fig. 4). For example, Xie teaches that
the resistance values of resistors 202-1 and 202-2 are twice the values of
resistors 202-3, 202-4, and 202-5 (id. ¶ 45).
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Examiner that Xie
teaches the disputed claim limitations as the reference discloses
configurations that are at least capable of generating different voltages or
currents using variable resistors and a single reference voltage VO.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection as maintained against claim 1.
With respect to method claim 20, the claim recites, in relevant part:
“wherein the set of reference signals consists of a plurality of different
reference signals” (Appeal Br. 12). The Appellant argues that “Xie discloses
a set of variable resistors that set the voltage for one of a set of comparators”
and that “[e]ach comparator receives a single voltage from a single resistor”
(id. at 6). For the same reasons discussed for claim 1, we find the
Appellant’s argument in support of claim 20 to be unpersuasive. Although
Xie teaches that the resistors “may be selected” to satisfy a certain
relationship in a particular embodiment (Xie ¶ 47), Xie also teaches that the
resistors 202-1–202-5 “may be any resistors, variable or non-variable,
programmable or non-programmable” (id. (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2019-000765
Application 15/502,788

8
For these reasons, and those well-stated by the Examiner, we uphold
the Examiner’s rejections.

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Evidentiary
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103  Xie, Kawai 1–3
4, 5, 12 103 Xie, Kawai,
Pelc
4, 5, 12
13, 20 103 Xie, Kawai,
Pelc, Kim
13, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 12, 13,
20

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