SHANGHAI UNITED IMAGING HEALTHCARE CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2021

2020004635 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
15/809,708 11/10/2017 Shaohui AN 20618-0007US02 3784
140662 7590 06/23/2021
Metis IP LLC
PO Box 423
McLean, VA 22101
EXAMINER
BRYANT, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2021 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):
docketing@metis-ip.com
xbzhang@metis-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHAOHUI AN and QIANG ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2020-004635
Application 15/809,708
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, 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 finally reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 18, 21–28, and
30–32. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Shanghai
United Imaging Healthcare Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004635
Application 15/809,708

2
The invention generally relates to positron emission tomography
(PET) detector devices. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1 illustrates the invention and
is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. A positron emission tomography (PET) detector,
the PET detector comprising:

a crystal array, the crystal array comprising a plurality of
crystal elements arranged in a single layer, each of the plurality
of crystal elements extending along a top-to-bottom direction,
and having an upper side and a lower side;

a semiconductor sensor array comprising a plurality of
semiconductor sensors for receiving photons from the plurality
of crystal elements;

wherein more than one of the plurality of crystal
elements in the crystal array is coupled with one semiconductor
sensor of the semiconductor sensor array and the coupling
comprises a contact between the semiconductor sensors and the
crystal elements directly through an adhesive material.

Appeal Br. 16.

Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated September 27, 2019:
I. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 18, 26–28, 30, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Wieczorek (US 2013/0153776 A1, published
June 20, 2013) in view of Rose (US 2013/0161521 A1, published June 27,
2013).

II. Claims 8, 9, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wieczorek, Rose, and Ladebeck (US 2008/0033279 A1, published Feb.
7, 2008).

Appeal 2020-004635
Application 15/809,708

3
III. Claims 6, 10, 21, and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wieczorek, Rose, and Sumiya (US 2005/0087693 A1,
published Apr. 28, 2005).

IV. Claims 22–24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Wieczorek, Rose, Sumiya, and Tonami (US 2009/0310735 A1, published
Dec. 17, 2009).

Appellant presents specific arguments only for claim 1. See generally
Appeal Br. 6–13. Appellant relies on these arguments to address the
rejections of the remaining claims. Id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all
grounds of rejections based on the arguments presented for claim 1.

OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal Brief and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 18, 21–28, and
30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 essentially for reasons the Examiner presents.
We add the following for emphasis.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a positron emission tomography
(PET) detector comprising a plurality of crystal elements forming an array,
an array including a plurality of semiconductor sensors, and wherein more
than one of the crystal elements is coupled to one semiconductor sensor
directly through an adhesive material.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 4–5
The Examiner finds Wieczorek teaches the crystal array and the
semiconductor sensor array with the requisite coupling required by the
Appeal 2020-004635
Application 15/809,708

4
claimed invention, but is silent as to directly coupling the semiconductor
sensors and the crystal elements through an adhesive material. Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner finds Rose teaches a PET detector comprising an optical
coupling formed directly between the semiconductor sensor array and the
crystal elements via an adhesive providing improved optical alignment and
detection performance. Id. at 4–5; Rose ¶¶ 4, 34. The Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a
direct coupling configuration in Wieczorek to provide improved optical
alignment and detection performance. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues Rose fails to disclose direct coupling between the
scintillator elements and the light sensor with an adhesive because Rose
teaches the adhesive directly couples a light guide to the light sensor, and
thus the light guide is disposed between the adhesive and the scintillator.
Appeal Br. 8–10. Appellant argues that, although formed from the same
materials, the light guide and the scintillator perform different functions and
cannot be considered to be a single scintillator as the Examiner contends in
the rejection.2 Id. at 11–12.
In the Answer, the Examiner argues the scintillator and the light guide
are formed unitarily from the same material and collectively constitute a
single scintillator, thus the adhesive would directly couple this single
scintillator to the semiconductor sensor as claimed. Ans. 4–5.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Rose describes the light guide

2 In support of this position Appellant relies on Exhibit 1 attached to the
Appeal Brief, “Scintillators, Detectors for Particle Physics,” page 5, Manfred
Krammer, Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna, Austria.
Appeal 2020-004635
Application 15/809,708

5
and the scintillator are unitarily or integrally formed from a single piece of
the same material, such as a crystalline material of bismuth germinate
(BGO). Rose ¶¶ 30–31, 50–51. Rose teaches the distinction between the
light guide and the scintillator is the presence of beveled surfaces on the
light guide, which are etched into the unitary piece of material forming the
two. Rose ¶¶ 36, 50–51. Rose further teaches the output surface of the light
guide is coupled to the light (semiconductor) sensor through an adhesive.
Rose ¶ 53, Fig. 5. The light guide and scintillator of Rose are unitarily
formed of a crystal material, and therefore collectively constitute a single
crystal element.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the instant claim language does not
preclude the crystal element from performing the functions of a scintillator
and a light guide. Notwithstanding this, both the light guide and scintillator
of Rose are unitarily formed of a crystal material, and therefore collectively
constitute a single crystal element as claimed, with an adhesive directly
coupled to the crystals and the semiconductor sensor. Claim 1 does not
require the adhesive to directly couple the semiconductor sensor and a
scintillator or scintillating element through the adhesive. Instead, claim 1
recites the adhesive directly couples the crystal elements to the
semiconductor sensor. As Rose teaches both the light guide and the
scintillator are formed unitarily from the same crystalline BGO material, the
two together form a single crystal element and, thus, the adhesive of Rose is
directly coupled to the crystal elements and the semiconductor sensor, as
required in instant claim 1. Rose ¶¶ 30–31, 53.
Appeal 2020-004635
Application 15/809,708

6
Accordingly, we affirm the prior art rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–
11, 18, 21–28, 30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons the Examiner
presents and we provide above.
DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 11,
18, 26–28,
30, 32
103 Wieczorek, Rose 1, 3, 5, 11,
18, 26–28,
30, 32

8, 9, 25 103 Wieczorek, Rose,
Ladebeck
8, 9, 25
6, 10, 21, 31 103 Wieczorek, Rose,
Sumiya
6, 10, 21, 31
22–24 Wieczorek, Rose,
Sumiya, Tonami
22–24
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5, 6, 8–
11, 18, 21–
28, 30–32

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED