Appeal No. 2004-0612
Application No. 09/531,660
container, is capable of functioning as a collimator, i.e.,
permitting only radiation traveling parallel to the axes of its
tubes to traverse the entire length of the tubes. Nor has the
examiner established that Kuwabara would have fairly suggested
modifying the view restricting screen such that it can do so.
Thus, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the apparatus claimed in the appellant’s claim 1
or obviousness of the apparatus claimed in the appellant’s
claims 2-4.3 Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of these
claims.
Claims 5-9
The appellant argues that claims 5-9 stand or fall
separately (brief, page 6). The appellant, however, does not
provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability
of claims 6-9 which depend from independent claim 5, even though
an additional reference is applied in the rejection of claim 9.4
Claims 5-9, therefore, stand or fall together. See In re
3 The examiner does not rely upon Cash, Jr. or Kumakhov for
any disclosure which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Kuwabara.
4 Instead, the appellant merely sets forth what each claim
recites and asserts that what is recited is not disclosed or
suggested by the references. This is tantamount to merely
pointing out differences in what claims cover, which is not an
argument as to why the claims are separately patentable. See 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007