Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
Appellant simply offers that "[t]he mechanisms used by Riley
to move a mask and Hanfmann to move a shield probably would
not suffice to move a collimator" (page 5 of reply brief,
emphasis added). Also, we note that none of claims 1, 2, 7
and 8 defines any specific structure for the drive means.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no
argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANDREW H. METZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007