Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
Clearly, the term, “sensing member,” appearing in the preamble
of claim 24, was employed broadly to define the combination of
the “sensing means” and the “interface means.” The
specification clearly describes this combination of elements
and we find no new matter in describing the combination as a
“sensing member.” Even so, appellant attempted to amend the
language “sensing member” to read “dental X-ray apparatus” but
the examiner refused entry of this narrowing amendment.
Similarly, with claim 27, we find no new matter in the
recitation of a “sensing member.” We agree with appellant
[bottom of page 4-principal brief] that the invention, as
originally disclosed, allows for a CCD cell to serve as an
image sensing member and a sensing element. The CCD cell
causes the generation of first and second control signals as
claimed [see, for example, the bottom of page 9 to the end of
the first full paragraph on page 10 of the specification].
With regard to claim 29, contrary to the examiner’s
assertion that there is no disclosure that the same detector
generates both X-ray detection signals and X-ray imaging
signals, the disclosed CCD cell does generate signals during
synchro-nization and also generates image signals.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007