General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 2021

2020004063 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 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. 15/711,939 09/21/2017 Brian Douglas Lounsberry 281551-US-1 | GEMS:0598 9093 68174 7590 05/03/2021 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2021 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): docket@fyiplaw.com rariden@fyiplaw.com robinson@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN DOUGLAS LOUNSBERRY Appeal 2020-004063 Application 15/711,939 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, 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, 3–9, 19, and 20. See Final Act. 4. 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 General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004063 Application 15/711,939 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims seek to provide “improvements in energy separation in a spectral CT context.” Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of acquiring and processing dual-energy X-ray transmission data, comprising: alternately emitting from an X-ray source a first X-ray beam having a first keV distribution and a second X-ray beam having a second keV distribution different than the first keV distribution; in response to each emitted first X-ray beam, reading out a low-energy scintillator signal from a first layer of a dual-layer detector; in response to each emitted second X-ray beam, reading out a high-energy scintillator signal from a second layer of the dual layer detector; and processing the low-energy scintillator signals solely from the first layer of the dual-layer detector and the high-energy scintillator signals solely from the second layer of the dual-layer detector to generate an image. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 8). REFERENCE The Examiner’s rejection relies on the following prior art reference: Name Reference Date Roessl US 2011/0216878 A1 Sept. 8, 2011 REJECTION2 The Examiner maintains the following rejection: 2 The Examiner rejects claim 2 on various grounds. Final Act. 2, 11. Appellant cancelled claim 2. Applicant Response of February 27, 2020; see Appeal 2020-004063 Application 15/711,939 3 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3–9, 19, 20 102(a)(1) Roessl OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant has identified reversible, and we affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim 13 In rejecting claim 1 over Roessl, the Examiner finds Roessl discloses a device having a scintillator array that includes two layers of scintillator pixels. Final Act. 4 (citing Roessl ¶¶ 38, 42); see Roessl ¶ 38. Specifically, Roessl discloses: also Ans. 3 (cancelling the rejections of claim 2). Claim 2 and the associated rejections are therefore not before us. 3 Appellant argues against the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 19, and 20 as a group, with claim 1 as the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 4–7. These claims stand or fall together. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-004063 Application 15/711,939 4 Absorption of the incoming radiation in the scintillator array 302 is energy-dependent, with lower energy photons travelling on average a shorter distance through the scintillator array 302 before being absorbed in the first layer 304, and higher energy photons travelling on average a greater distance through the scintillator array 302 before being absorbed typically in a second layer 306. As such, the depth of the absorption is indicative of the energy of the detected radiation. Roessl ¶ 38 (cited in Final Act. 4). Based on Roessl’s disclosure of a detector array that “will generate first signals corresponding to a first tube voltage and second signals corresponding to a second tube voltage,” (Roessl ¶ 42), the Examiner finds Roessl discloses a method of “processing the low- energy scintillator signals solely from the first layer of the dual-layer detector and the high-energy scintillator signals solely from the second layer of the dual-layer detector to generate an image” as claim 1 recites. Final Act. 6 (citing Roessl ¶¶ 24, 42). Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred because “all of the signals are utilized in Roessl.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Roessl ¶¶ 39, 40, 42, 48). Appellant argues that Roessl “fails to disclose emitting at a low energy level and solely acquiring low energy scintillator signals from one detector and emitting at a high energy level and solely acquiring high energy scintillator signal from another detector in generating an image.” Id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Instead of “solely acquiring low energy scintillator signals from one detector . . . and solely acquiring high energy scintillator signal from another detector” as Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 6), the claim recites “processing the low-energy scintillator signals solely from the first layer of the dual-layer detector and the high-energy scintillator Appeal 2020-004063 Application 15/711,939 5 signals solely from the second layer of the dual-layer detector.” (emphasis added). That is, the claim language requires that the signals be processed from different layers of the detector rather than from different detectors as Appellant argues. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (holding that “appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims”). Appellant’s argument that Roessl “discloses generating images for either individual spectral components or all of the spectral components, not the recited components” (Appeal Br. 7) is likewise unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. The plain language of the claim is open-ended and recites a method for “processing the low-energy scintillator signals solely from the first layer of the dual-layer detector and the high-energy scintillator signals solely from the second layer of the dual-layer detector to generate an image” without excluding the image to be generated from individual or collective signals. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 encompasses Roessl’s method. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. Appeal 2020-004063 Application 15/711,939 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9, 19, 20 102 Roessl 1, 3–9, 19, 20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED