Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
For the reasons supra, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 24 through 28
under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Franke. We will sustain the
rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 but we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 24 through 26 under 35
U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claims 27, the examiner applies Franke in a
similar manner as applied to claim 32. However, the examiner
notes that claim 27 requires the generation of a first control
signal when the sensing member detects X-ray radiation and the
generation of a second control signal when the sensing member
does not detect X-ray radiation. As the examiner states, the
output of comparator 14, identified by the examiner as the
“second control signal,” is obviously maintained for some time
period after the “opening of relay 15 (which opening results
in termination of the x ray radiation) in order that the relay
does not relatch itself closed again” [answer-page 5].
Accordingly, the second control signal in Franke does exist
“when” the sensing member 8 does not detect X-ray radiation.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007