Appeal No. 1998-2904
Application 08/715,256
inventors concealed that better mode. Cf. Engel Indus. Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528,
1531, 20 USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The mere absence of a detailed showing of
separate conductors 29 for each gate electrode 22 in Figure 2 does not necessarily indicate
appellants' intent to conceal them.
The disclosed preferred embodiment of the invention encompasses the operation of an
X-ray examination apparatus for use in fluoroscopy or X-ray imaging per se. This is
accomplished in accordance with the subject matter of independent claim 8 on appeal. The
image sensor 8 of Figure 1 is depicted in more detail in Figure 2 and a separate embodiment
utilizing a beam splitter is depicted in Figure 5. These features are respectively reflected in
independent claims 1 and 7 on appeal. Thus, it is apparent that the scope of enablement of
the disclosed invention has been recited in the respective independent claims in the same
manner as disclosed. Since the examiner's views are not well founded as to the best mode
rejection, it too is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007