General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 24, 2021

2020000826 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 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. 15/365,689 11/30/2016 James Zhengshe Liu 285137-2 (GEMS:0569) 1777 68174 7590 05/24/2021 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER FAYE, MAMADOU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2021 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 JAMES ZHENGSHE LIU Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, 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 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 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, the assignee of record. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to systems and methods for fabricating a digital flat panel detector having a non-rectangular shape. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are reproduced below: 1. A flat panel X-ray detector comprising: a scintillator layer that converts X-ray photons into lower energy light photons; a light imager layer comprising a tiled arrangement of imager panels configured to convert the light photons into electrons, wherein at least one imager panel comprises a non- rectangular active area; a readout device that converts the electrons into digitized pixel values, and a communication unit that transfers the pixel values to an imaging system that is connected to the detector. 9. A method for forming a light imager panel comprising: dicing a silicon wafer into wedge-shaped quadrant imager tiles; separating the wedge-shaped quadrant tiles along at least one dimension; between the separated wedge-shaped quadrant tiles, positioning at least a pair of rectangular imager tiles to form a non-rectangular light imager panel configured to convert light photons into electrons. 15. A light imager panel for use in a radiation detector, the light imager panel comprising: four wedge-shaped panels forming the rounded corners of the light imager panel; two or more rectangular panels positioned between the wedge-shaped panels to form straight edges of the light imager panel, wherein the light imager panel is configured to convert light photons into electrons. Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 3 REFERENCES The prior art upon which the Examiner relies is: Name Reference Date Ikhlef US 2013/0168796 A1 July 4, 2013 Tkaczyk ’380 US 2013/0026380 A1 Jan. 31, 2013 Granfors US 2013/0256543 A1 Oct. 3, 2013 Berauer US 2011/0297839 A1 Dec. 8, 2011 Tkaczyk ’054 US 2012/0133054 A1 May 31, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: 1. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ikhlef and Tkaczyk ’380. Final Act. 4. 2. Claims 2, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ikhlef and Tkaczyk ’380. Id. at 4–5. 3. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380, and Granfors. Id. at 5. 4. Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380, and Berauer. Id. at 6. 5. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380, and Tkaczyk ’054. Id. at 6–7. 6. Claims 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tkaczyk ’380 and Granfors. Id. at 7–8. OPINION Rejection 1 The Examiner finds that Ikhlef discloses a scintillator layer that converts X-ray photons into lower energy light photons, a light imager layer Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 4 comprising a tiled arrangement of imager panels configured to convert the light photons into electrons, a readout device, and a communication unit. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Ikhlef does not disclose that at least one imager panel has a non-rectangular active area. Id. The Examiner finds Tkaczyk ’380 discloses at least one imager panel having a non-rectangular active area. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Ikhlef and Tkaczyk ’380 because Tkaczyk ’380 teaches the benefits of reduced chipping. Id. Appellant asserts that the Examiner relies upon Tkaczyk ’380 for disclosing an imager panel that includes a non-rectangular active area but Tkaczyk ’380 discloses solid-state detectors that directly convert radiation into charge carriers, not image panels that convert light photons into electrons. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 2. In view of this, Appellant argues that Tkaczyk ’380 does not disclose or suggest an imager panel that converts light photons into electrons and has a non-rectangular area, as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner finds Ikhlef discloses light imager panels that are configured to convert light photons into electrons. Ans. 4. Ikhlef supports this finding because it discloses sensor tiles with photosensor arrays that convert optical photons into electrical current signals. Ikhlef ¶¶ 19, 43. Although Tkaczyk ’380 regards solid-state x-ray detectors, Tkaczyk ’380 Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 5 teaches that tiles for such x-ray detectors may have substantially oblique angles at one or more edges and/or corners to reduce the likelihood of chipping. Tkaczyk ’380 ¶¶ 2, 38, 40, 42. As a result, the combination of Ikhelf’s and Tkaczyk ’380’s disclosures would have suggested using substantially oblique angles at the edges and/or corners of Ikhelf’s panels to reduce the likelihood of chipping. Appellant argues for the first time in its Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Ikhlef in view of Tkaczyk ’380 is deficient because Tkaczyk ’380’s sensors are made of a brittle sensor material (e.g., cadmium zinc telluride), but Ikhlef does not use this material. Reply Br. 3. We note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Nonetheless, we address Appellant’s argument, which is unpersuasive. Although Tkaczyk ’380 teaches that cadmium zinc telluride is brittle, Tkaczyk ’380 describes cadmium zinc telluride as an exemplary material and, therefore, does not limit its detectors to only cadmium zinc telluride. Tkaczyk ’380 ¶¶ 38, 42. Further, Tkaczyk ’380 teaches that detectors for diagnostic imaging systems “are often produced from semiconductor materials, such as Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CdZnTe), often referred to as CZT, Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), Thallium Bromide (TlBr) and Silicon (Si), among others.” Id. ¶ 3. Tkaczyk ’380 further explains that these semiconductor devices include arrays of detector modules “formed from sensor tiles that have sharp angled corners and edges that are vulnerable to fracture because the sensor tiles are unprotected and have no supporting material on one or more sides” Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 6 and “[a]ccordingly, these corners and edges have an increased likelihood of chipping.” Id. ¶ 4. Ikhlef discloses that the photodiode arrays of its sensor tiles can be fabricated from silicon. Ikhlef ¶¶ 21–22, 43. In other words, Tkaczyk ’380 teaches that the problem of chipped edges applies to sensor tiles made from silicon, which is the material Ikhlef teaches for the arrays of its sensor tiles. As a result, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the reason to combine Ikhlef and Tkaczyk ’380. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain Rejection 1. Rejections 2–5 For Rejections 2–5, Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 2, 6, and 8 over Ikhlef and Tkaczyk ’380 and the additional references applied in Rejections 3–5 do not remedy the deficiencies Appellant argues with respect to Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 7–10. For the reasons discussed above with regard to Rejection 1, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing in Rejections 2–5. Accordingly, we also sustain Rejections 2–5. Rejection 6 For Rejection 6, the Examiner finds Tkaczyk ’380 discloses dicing a silicon wafer into wedge-shaped imager tiles and positioning at least a pair of rectangular imager tiles between separated wedge-shaped tiles to form a non-rectangular light imager panel. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Tkaczyk ’380 does not disclose or suggest that the light imager panel is Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 7 configured to convert light photons into electrons or that the tiles are wedge- shaped quadrant tiles. Id. The Examiner finds Granfors discloses a light imager panel configured to convert light photons into electrons that includes wedge- shaped quadrants. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Tkaczyk ’380 and Granfors in view of Granfors’s teachings of improved packing efficiency. Id. Appellant contends that “the Examiner merely cited Granfors for allegedly disclosing a wedge-shaped quadrant” but “the detector panels 96, 100, and 106 in Granfors are circular and do not include tiles” and “FIGS. 6- 8 of Granfors only illustrate a portion (e.g., portions 94, 98, 104) of the respective panels 96, 98, 100.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner finds that Granfors teaches wedge-shaped quadrants by citing Granfors’s Figures 6–8. Final Act. 7. Although Figures 6–8 may appear initially to show quadrants or fourths of a panel, Granfors describes Figures 6–8 as showing only a portion of an X-ray detector panel. Granfors ¶¶ 16– 18, 33. Granfors also explains that its panel is “a substantially rounded X- ray detector panel 96” that “includes four corners that are truncated with respect to a rectangle to form a substantially rounded shape.” Id. ¶ 33. Therefore, panel 96 depicted in Granfors’s Figures 6–8 has not been diced into quadrants, as claim 9 recites, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how panel 96 provides four wedge-shaped panels, as claim 15 recites. In the Answer, the Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments for Rejection 6 by stating that the Examiner’s response for Rejection 1 also Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 8 applies to claims 9 and 15. Ans. 4. However, Rejection 1 is based on a different combination of references. Also, Appellant does not present arguments for Rejection 1 that regard dicing a silicon wafer into wedge- shaped quadrant imager tiles, as claim 9 recites, or four wedge-shaped panels, as claim 15 recites. Therefore, the Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief regarding quadrants or four wedge-shaped panels, as recited in claims 9 and 15. Accordingly, we reverse Rejection 6. CONCLUSION The rejections are affirmed in part. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380 1 2, 6, 8 103 Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380 2, 6, 8 3 103 Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380, Granfors 3 4, 5 103 Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380, Berauer 4, 5 7 103 Ikhlef, Tkaczyk ’380, Tkaczyk ’054 7 9–20 103 Tkaczyk ’380, Granfors 9–20 Overall Outcome: 1–8 9–20 Appeal 2020-000826 Application 15/365,689 9 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 IN PART