Appeal No. 2003-1278 Page 4
Application No. 09/577,701
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1, 4 and 6
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In this rejection (answer, pp. 3-5) the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent
teachings of Muehllehner and Hilton; (2) ascertained that Muehllehner lacks the
scintillation layer is pixilated; and (3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to provide a pixilated scintillation layer in the device of
Muehllehner in order to improve both image resolution and efficiency as taught by
Hilton.
In our view, the teachings of Hilton would have made it obvious, at best, to have
replaced both Muehllehner's laminar or planar scintillation crystal 37 and Muehllehner's
light guide 45 with Hilton's light pipe fibers. As such, the teachings of the applied prior
art would not have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007