Appeal No. 96-1268
Application 08/013,739
1983).
Appellant argues in the brief that Shimura and Funahashi, together or individually, fail to
teach or suggest the method steps iv and v as recited in Appellant’s claim 7. On page 5 of the
answer, the Examiner agrees that Shimura is silent to a specific teaching of the method step iv as
recited in Appellant’s claim 7. However, the Examiner argues on page 6 of the answer that
Shimura teaches in Figure 4a and column 3, line 66, through column 4, line 10, that the portion
corresponding to the sheet edge has a substantially lower image signal level than the irradiation
field B.
In the reply brief, the Appellant argues that the Examiner has incorrectly interpreted
Shimura. The Appellant points out that Figure 4a only shows that the graph stops at the sheet
edge, but does not teach that the sheet edge has a substantially lower image signal level than the
irradiation field B. On page 4 of the supplemental answer, the Examiner responds by stating that
Shimura teaches in column 3, line 66, through column 4, line 10 and in Figure 4a that the portion
corresponding to the region between the irradiation field B and the edge of the recording medium
has a substantially lower image signal level than the irradiation field B itself.
Upon a careful review of Shimura, we find that the reference fails to teach the Appellants’
recited method steps iv as recited in Appellant’s claim 7. In column 3, lines 9-12, Shimura
teaches that the object of their invention is to provide a method of recognizing an irradiation field
even though it is irregular in shape. In column 3, lines 58-60, Shimura teaches that the
prospective edge
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007