Ex Parte Call

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

13589278 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/589,278 08/20/2012 John D. Call
4372 7590 04/22/2016
ARENT FOX LLP
1717 K Street, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
032001.00072 6504
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUNK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
DCIPDocket@arentfox.com
IPMatters@arentfox.com
Patent_Mail@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN D. CALL
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
Technology Center 2800
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-8. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 3 5 U.S. C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug.
20, 2012); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 4, 2013);
Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sept. 4, 2013); the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 10, 2013); and Appellant's Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 10, 2013).
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a radiation detection instrument
that includes a stacked array of semiconductor crystal slices for detecting
photon emissions. Spec. i-f 2. The instrument's photon absorption may be
enhanced by manipulating the thickness of the crystal slice arrangement or
the voltage applied to it. Spec. i-fi-1 6-7. "In addition, the required bias
voltage, which is dependent upon the thickness of the individual crystal
slices rather than the sum of their thicknesses, is less than that required for a
monolithic crystal having the same total thickness." Spec. i-f 8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A probe for detecting radiation, comprising:
an elongate handle having a first end and a second end;
and an assembly disposed at an end of the handle for detecting
photon emissions, the assembly comprising:
at least three cadmium zinc tellurium crystal slices
disposed in a stacked array and electrically coupled together in
a parallel electrical circuit; and
a shield at least partially surrounding the crystal slices,
wherein the stacked array provides photon absorption
comparable to a monolithic crystal having a thickness generally
equivalent to the sum of the thicknesses of the crystal slices,
wherein the stacked array is electrically biased to a
voltage less than that required for a monolithic crystal having a
thickness equivalent to the sum of the thicknesses of the crystal
slices, and
wherein the stacked array is electrically biased to a
voltage corresponding to a ratio of the thickness of the
individual crystal slices to that of a monolithic crystal having a
thickness generally equivalent to the sum of the thicknesses of
the crystal slices.
2
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
THE REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishizawa (US 5,907, 156; Sept. 30, 1997), Rhiger (US
5,616,925; June 7,1995), and Hirai (US 2005/0230628 Al; Oct. 20, 2005).
Final Act. 2-5.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishizawa, Rhiger, Hirai, and Yamakawa (US 6,236,051 Bl; May 22,
2001 ). Final Act. 5---6.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishizawa, Rhiger, Hirai, Yamakawa, and Denen (US 4,801,803; Jan. 31,
1989). Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishizawa, Rhiger, Hirai, and Denen. Final Act. 7-9.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this Opinion. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. App. Br. 5-18; Reply Br. 5-13. We are
unpersuaded by Appellant's contentions regarding claim 1. However, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-8.
2 Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims,
but deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form and claims 12-20
have been allowed. Final Act. 9.
3
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
Regarding claim 1, we adopt as our own and agree with the Examiner's
findings and reasons set forth in the action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2--4) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-8). We highlight
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
Appellant argues Nishizawa fails to suggest "an assembly of crystal
slices that provides photon absorption comparable to a monolithic crystal
having a thickness generally equivalent to the sum of the thicknesses of the
crystal slices." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 5-8. More specifically,
Appellant argues Nishizawa fails to disclose "any relationship between the
characteristics of an assembly of crystal slices and the characteristics of a
monolithic crystal." Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We note that
"[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner finds Nishizawa discloses using a layered stack of crystals
implementing a wide range radiation detector to remedy known problems in
a radiation detector using a single, monolithic crystal. Ans. 3--4. We agree
with the Examiner. Nishizawa specifically discloses problems in using a
thick crystal semiconductor in implementing a "wide range radiation
detector." Nishizawa 1: 59---63. Nishizawa specifically provides a solution
to problems associated with implementing a "wide range radiation detector"
using a layered stack of semiconductor elements (crystals). Id. at 2:25-29.
4
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
Thus, Nishizawa explicitly discloses equivalently implementing a "wide
range radiation detector" using either a single, monolithic, thick crystal or a
layered stack of thinner crystals (providing a similar or identical "wide
range" of radiation detection but without the problems inherent in a thick,
monolithic crystal). In view of these teachings ofNishizawa, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have recognized that multiple crystal layers may be
assembled to provide a comparable absorption to that achievable using a
monolithic crystal of about the same thickness (i.e., a comparable "wide
range" of radiation detection).
We remain unpersuaded by Appellant's further argument "[t]he fact
that the detection part is 'enlarged' in the assembly ofNishizawa does not
necessarily mean that the assembly in fact is comparable to a monolithic
crystal having a thickness generally equivalent to the sum of the thicknesses
of the crystal slices." Reply Br. 5. Appellant explains there are numerous
factors relating to the material of each slice that determine absorption (Reply
Br. 5) and discusses various such factors in more detail (id. at 5-8). Even
accepting Appellant's argument, arguendo, the fact that crystal slices could
be selected for purposes that would not provide the recited comparable
absorption does not negate the teaching or suggestion ofNishizawa that a
stacked array of slices may be selected to provide a similar absorption in a
"wide range radiation detector" - e.g., the same or similar "wide range" of
radiation to be detected.
Appellant further argues Nishizawa does not disclose the recited
relationships between the bias voltage applied to the stacked crystal layers
and the voltage applied to a monolithic crystal having comparable
absorption - namely, a voltage less than that applied to a monolithic crystal
5
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
and the voltage corresponding to a ratio of the thickness of a crystal (of the
layered stack of slices) to the thickness of the comparable monolithic crystal.
App. Br. 7-11.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner properly
relies on Nishizawa, in view of common knowledge available to the
ordinarily skilled artisan, and adequately articulates how the above
limitations can be derived from well-known fundamental principles of
science. Ans. 6-7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that a stacked array of
"n" electrically parallel connected crystal slices biased to a voltage (VD =
VM/n2) corresponds to a ratio (i.e., n) of the thickness (D) of the individual
crystal slices to that of a monolithic crystal (M) having a thickness (T)
generally equivalent to the sum of the thicknesses of the crystal slices (T =
nD). Ans. 7. The Examiner finds well-known scientific principles,
evidenced by Sherohman, and well-known mathematical manipulation
reveal that the bias voltage ("VD") applied to a crystal of thickness "D" in a
layered stack of "n" crystals, each stacked crystal of thickness "D," is equal
to the bias voltage necessary for the comparable monolithic crustal ("V M")
divided by the square of the number of layers. Ans. 7 (deriving VD =
VM/n2).
We remain unpersuaded by Appellant's further argument that the
Examiner's mathematical analysis "is not taken from the teachings or
suggestions ofNishizawa." Reply Br. 9. The Examiner's mathematical
analysis is based on the teachings ofNishizawa, well-known scientific
principles (evidenced by Sherohman), and well-known mathematical
manipulation.
6
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
For the above reasons, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2--8
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
further including a plurality of interconnects adapted to
electrically couple together the crystal slices in a parallel
electrical circuit,
the interconnects having electrically conductive, spaced-
apart and generally parallel elements joined by electrically
conductive spacers extending generally orthogonally
therebetween, and
the spacers being rotationally offset from each other by a
predetermined angle.
The Examiner finds Nishizawa discloses these features of the interconnects,
citing elements 21 a, 21 b, 22a, and 22b in Nishizawa' s Figure 3, and
discloses the recited orthogonality and rotated relationships of the
interconnects in Figure 17. Final Act. 4 (citing Nishizawa 2:45--49).
Appellant argues Nishizawa's Figure 17 is a schematic diagram
disclosing the parallel electrical connection but fails to disclose any
structural aspects of the interconnects as required by claim 2. Reply Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant. The parallel electrical interconnections between
the stacked layers may be implemented in a wide variety of structures and
the Examiner has failed to identify any structure disclosed in Nishizawa that
teaches or suggests the recited structural features of claim 2. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 2.
7
Appeal2014-002721
Application 13/589,278
Claims 3-8 are either directly or indirectly dependent from claim 2.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3-8 for at least the
same reason as we have stated for claim 2.
Appellant raises additional issues in the Briefs regarding the rejections
of claims 2-8. We are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue
discussed supra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of claims 2-8. We,
therefore, do not reach the additional issues.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 1s
affirmed.
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-8 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8