Appeal No. 1997-2293
Application No. 08/089,311
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant’s primary argument in the Briefs centers on the
contention that neither of the Johnston and Koshiyouji
references discloses a light box structure, let alone any
teaching or suggestion of the formation of a light box and
scanner into a single integral unit as claimed. After careful
review of the applied prior art in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as
stated in the Briefs. We note that the relevant portion of
each of the independent appealed claims 5, 13, and 18 recites:
an x-ray viewing light box coupled to the
scanner, and arranged so that said scanner
is disposed within a housing of said light
box, said light box and said scanner forming
a single, integral unit . . .
Our interpretation of the disclosures of Johnston and
Koshiyouji coincides with that of the Appellant, i.e. these
references, at most, suggest only a scanner light source and
scanner mechanism mounted inside a housing. We are at a loss
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007