Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
We now turn to the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) based on Franke.
We will sustain this rejection.
The examiner presents, in our view, a prima facie case of
anticipation, explaining, quite convincingly, at pages 8-9 of
the answer, how Franke discloses the method set forth in
instant claim 32. While the examiner recognizes that Franke’s
disclosure differs from that of the instant disclosed
invention, the subject matter of instant claim 32 broadly
reads on Franke.
Appellant argues [pages 8-9 of the principal brief] that
Franke fails to disclose the two claimed control signals.
However, as broadly claimed, we agree with the examiner’s
analysis of Franke and the application thereof to instant
claim 32. That is, a first control signal is generated at
capacitor 13 in Franke’s Figure 2 when the sensing member 8
detects X-rays; and a second control signal is generated at
the output of comparator 14 when the signal at capacitor 13
reaches the desired dose set by reference 20 which then causes
a deactivation of X-ray generation through the opening of
contacts 17 by relay 15.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007