Appeal No. 1996-2853
Application 08/375,272
Vacuum Deposition: Deposition of a thin
coating of metal by condensation on
a cool work surface in vacuum.
(Reply brief-page 2.)
In the rejection based on Arakawa, the Examiner states:
Accordingly, all of the positive structural
limitations of the radiation image storage
panel claimed in independent claims 21, 24
and 27 are shown in the disclosure of
Arakawa et al. except for the particular
choice of resin. (Answer-page 4.)
Claims 21 and 24 recite “a sintered stimulable phosphor”,
and claim 27 recites “a deposited stimulable phosphor ...
which is prepared by the steps of vacuum-depositing a
stimulable phosphor ....”
We have carefully reviewed all portions of Arakawa cited
by the Examiner and cannot find these limitations. Our own
review of Arakawa reveals a compression/heat treatment at
column 10 line 58-column 11 line 4. However there is no
indication whether this treatment is sufficient to sinter the
phosphor and the Examiner has not alleged so. We have also
found that Arakawa “deposits” the stimulable phosphor onto a
support by using a doctor blade, a roll coater, a knife coater
or the like (column 2, line 6). We find that the resulting
product would not be the same as one that had been deposited
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007