Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
patentable distinction. The skilled artisan would clearly
have realized, from prior experience at a dentist or from
recognizing equally obvious expedients, that the positions of
the source of radiation and the sensing member may be
exchanged, one for the other, with the same results, so long
as the body to be imaged [in this case, the tooth] is between
them.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 27 and 28
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
We will not, however, sustain the rejection of claims 24
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because these claims are in
“means-plus-function” form and appellant has invoked
Donaldson, alleging that the “means-plus-function” language of
these claims must be construed, in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph, to cover that structure specifically
disclosed and equivalents thereof. Giving this restrictive
interpretation to the instant claim language, as urged by
appellant, there is clearly no suggestion in Franke for the
specific circuitry of instant Figure 3 or for the specific
arrangement of the sensing member depicted in Figures 1 and
2a-2c. We will interpret the claimed “interface means” to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007