Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
signals and the two control signals, and this
constitutes new matter.
Since the instant claims do not recite or require two
sets of sensors, the examiner’s rationale is not only unclear
but we fail to find anything therein which would constitute an
offense against the written description portion of 35 U.S.C.
112.
The examiner’s objection becomes a little clearer in the
response to appellant’s arguments. At page 6 of the answer,
the examiner explains that signals from elements 2-4 are used
to measure X-ray intensity and
there is no disclosure that they also generate image
signals. The disclosed interface has no image
signal input, no means for processing image signals
and, most importantly, no means for outputting image
signals as recited in claim 16. There is no
teaching ... that the interface is coupled to means
for displaying an image ...
If the examiner is troubled by a perceived lack of
disclosure of a means for displaying an image, there is clear
support for such a recitation in original claims 6 and 8, for
example, or, for example, in the last paragraph of page 1 of
the specification. The sensing means for generating electric
signals in response to X-ray radiation is disclosed as either
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007