Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Zeng to couple the photodetectors to at least one
end of the stack of bar detectors strips (Answer 5-7).
Appellant argues that the skilled artisan would not have been
motivated by the disclosure of Miraldi to modify Zeng as the Examiner
proposes. Specifically, Appellant contends that since Miraldi is not
concerned with multiple scintillation elements between multiple slats as
disclosed by Zeng, Miraldi cannot provide any suggestion to skilled artisans
regarding placing the photodetectors in the apparatus of Zeng. According to
Appellant, the embodiments of Zeng (i.e., utilizing either single or multiple
scintillator elements) could not perform correctly with photodetectors
mounted as shown by Miraldi for single one-dimensional scintillation
crystals (Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 1-3).
Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s statement that the placement
of photodetectors in Zeng is left as a design choice. According to Appellant,
the photodetectors must be within the detector head 22 (Id.).
The Examiner argues that Miraldi’s solution for coupling multiple
photodetectors to at least one end of a stack of elongated bar detector strips
is relevant to Zeng which teaches a similar configuration. In this regard, the
Examiner indicates that Miraldi discloses multiple scintillation elements that
are closely aligned with individual channels in the collimator – channels that
are each aligned with corresponding scintillation crystal (Answer 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Appellant argues that Iwanczyk fails to
cure the basic deficiency in the proposed combination of references since the
silicon drift photodetector (SDP) in Iwanczyk is mounted along the long
dimension of the scintillator (Br. 10-11). The Examiner responds that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013