Rigaku Raman Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2021

2020000238 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2021)

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.
15/003,891 01/22/2016 Eric Roy 15159-012 6357
80711 7590 03/22/2021
BGL/Chicago
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
AMARA, MOHAMED K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2021 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 ERIC ROY, JASON BOOTH,
CLAUDE ROBOTHAM, and FEDERICO IZZIA
____________

Appeal 2020-000238
Application 15/003,891
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Rigaku Raman Technologies Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000238
Application 15/003,891

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a method for minimizing non-random noise in
spectrometers, and an apparatus configured to conduct such a method. Spec.
¶ 2. According to the Specification, a peak signal-to-noise ratio is calculated
based in part on a sum of specified noise contributions over the course of an
exposure period. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. Non-random noise in an output waveform is
minimized by performing a desired exposure as averaged multiple
exposures, each of a single predefined duration, in which the predefined
duration is determined based on the calculated signal-to-noise ratio and time
dependent noise structure of a given spectrometer system. Id. ¶ 34. Claim 9
reads:
9. A method to minimize nonrandom electronic noise for a
handheld spectroscopy system having a source and detector, the
method comprising the steps of:
emitting a plurality of exposures of electromagnetic
radiation from the source, wherein a time for each exposure of
the plurality of exposures is a predefined length of time,
wherein each of the multiple exposures are equal in duration for
the predetermined length of time, wherein the predefined length
of time is based on time dependent noise characteristics of the
spectroscopy system to minimize nonrandom electronic noise;
receiving by the detector at least a portion of the
electromagnetic radiation from the source for each exposure;
calculating a waveform by averaging each signal
associated with each of the plurality exposures received by the
detector, wherein each of the plurality of exposures have a
duration equal to the predefined length of time;
wherein the predefined length of time is calculated based
on the ratio of signal-to-noise to exposure time of the
spectroscopy system, wherein the predefined length of time is
the predefined length of time where the signal-to-noise ratio is
substantially at a maximum and is calculated by averaging
multiple exposures whose time is selected based on the time
dependent noise characteristics of the system; and
Appeal 2020-000238
Application 15/003,891

3
wherein the noise of the ratio of signal-to-noise is a sum
of a read noise, a detector noise, a shot noise, and an electronic
noise.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus configured to perform a
method essentially as recited in claim 9. Each remaining claim on appeal
depends from claim 1 or 9.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5–10, and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pawluczyk2 and Whitsitt.3
II. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pawluczyk, Whitsitt, and Vernier.4

OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative

2 US 2014/0268136 A1, published Sept. 2014.
3 US 2002/0193971 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002.
4 Vernier Emissions Spectrometer Guide (2014).
Appeal 2020-000238
Application 15/003,891

4
steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “the source is configured by
the control system to emit electromagnetic radiation for the predefined
length of time for each of the multiple exposures, wherein the predefined
length of time . . . is the same for each of the multiple exposures.”
Independent claim 9 similarly recites, “emitting a plurality of exposures of
electromagnetic radiation from the source . . . wherein each of the multiple
exposures are [sic] equal in duration for the predetermined length of time.”
The Examiner finds Pawluczyk discloses a method and apparatus
using varied exposure times to account for electronic noise, but that
Pawluczyk also discloses a technique for detecting dark and bad detector
pixels that employs multiple exposures of equal duration. Final Act. 5; Ans.
5. The Examiner points to Pawluczyk’s paragraph 41 as teaching multiple
exposure times of equal duration. Final Act. 5. Particularly, the Examiner
finds Pawluczyk discloses “illuminating the photodetector with a uniform
light for a period of time below saturation level of each pixel,” and
identifying dark or bad pixels where “an estimated mean of the signal output
of the pixel varies by more than 3 standard deviations from a mean signal
output of neighboring pixels.” Ans. 4 (quoting Pawluczyk ¶ 41). The
Examiner infers the foregoing reference to mean values as requiring
averaging of multiple exposures, which, according to the Examiner,
necessarily would have been of equal duration. Id.
Appellant argues Pawluczyk discloses only exposures times of
different duration. Appeal Br. 8 (“In order to correct signal-to-noise issues,
Appeal 2020-000238
Application 15/003,891

5
Pawluczyk discloses taking multiple measurements over different exposure
times.”). Appellant argues the Examiner’s inference of multiple exposures
of equal duration for identification of dark or bad pixels is not supported,
and in fact contrary, to Pawluczyk’s disclosure. Reply Br. 6.
We agree the Examiner’s inference that Pawluczyk teaches
identification of dark or bad pixels using multiple exposures of equal
duration is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Because the
Examiner’s rejection of both independent claims is premised on that
inference, we do not sustain the rejections.
As the Examiner correctly observes, Pawluczyk teaches identifying
dark and bad pixels where an “estimated mean” of a pixel output signal
varies by more than three standard deviations from a “mean signal output of
neighboring signals.” Pawluczyk ¶ 41. However, Pawluczyk explains the
mean signal output of neighboring signals refers to statistical distribution,
such as a Gaussian distribution. Id. ¶ 145. That is, an estimated mean for a
given pixel is statistically determined based on a measured mean of outputs
obtained from a select number of neighboring pixels. “This means that if the
estimated mean of a pixel varies by more than 3 standard deviations from the
mean of its neighboring pixels, that pixel is ‘bad’ and should not be taken
into account for spectral analysis.” Id. “[O]ther values for standard
deviation multiplier and number of pixels used to determine the mean can be
used.” Id.
The foregoing disclosure in Pawluczyk is contrary to the Examiner’s
inference that Pawluczyk implicitly teaches obtaining a mean signal by
performing multiple exposures of equivalent duration. The Examiner does
Appeal 2020-000238
Application 15/003,891

6
not rely on either Whitsitt or Vernier in a manner that address or overcomes
the foregoing deficiency.
Because the Rejections are premised on an unsupported inference,
they are not sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16 is
reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–10,
13–16
103 Pawluczyk,
Whitsitt
1, 2, 5–10,
13–16
4, 12 103 Pawluczyk,
Whitsitt, Vernier
4, 12
Overall
outcome
1, 2, 4–10,
12–16

REVERSED