Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
Turning to the claim language, we note that the scope and breadth of
the term “coupled” does not preclude optical coupling. That is, nothing in
the claim requires physically mounting or attaching the photodetector to the
end of the bar detector strips. Rather, the limitation is fully met so long as
some optical coupling exists between the detector strips’ ends and the
photodetector in the manner claimed.
With this construction, we turn to the prior art. Even assuming,
without deciding, that the at least one photodetector must be located within
the detector head 22 as Appellant argues, we nonetheless find the
Examiner’s combination of Miraldi with Zeng reasonable. Miraldi teaches
mounting photomultipliers 96, 98 (20, 22 in Fig. 2) to opposite ends of a
scintillation crystal 86 having a rectangular cross section (18 in Fig. 2)
(Miraldi, Figs. 2 and 7; col. 4, ll. 17-32; col. 5, l. 55 – col. 6, l. 49).
Significantly, the photomultipliers disposed at both ends convert the light in
the scintillation crystal to electrical pulses whose amplitudes are converted
to logarithms for finding the location of the scintillation in the crystal.
Detecting the locations of scintillations in the crystal in this manner
ultimately improves resolution (Miraldi, abstract; col. 3, ll. 4-10; col. 6, l. 41
– col. 7, l. 4).
The clear import of this discussion is that coupling the photodetectors
to the end of the scintillation crystal is critical to determine the location of
the scintillation in the crystal. In our view, this teaching would have
provided ample reason for the skilled artisan to provide such a photodetector
mounting in the arrangement of Zeng. Such a coupling would, at least in
part, dispose each photodetector normal to the elongated dimension of the
detector elements.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013