Appeal No. 1996-2853
Application 08/375,272
by a vacuum process, nor has the Examiner alleged so. Thus we
find that Arakawa does not meet the claim limitations of any
of the independent claims.
Appellants further argue with regard to Arakawa:
Appellant’s claimed radiation storage panel
comprises a sintered stimulable phosphor
and a cured resin. The resin filled in the
phosphor layer is clearly a cured resin
which is formed by the curing step. The
cured resin in Appellants’ stimulable
phosphor layer fills in pores or cracks
formed in the sintered or deposited
phosphor layer so fast that mechanical
strength of the phosphor layer can be
increased and the radiation image-forming
characteristics can be improved. Generally
employed binder resins such as those
described in Arakawa et al. are noncurable
resins and the noncurable resins cannot
impart such improvements as those provided
by the cured resin to the phosphor layer.
(Reply brief-page 3.)
We note that all independent claims recite “a cured
resin”. The Examiner states:
If the examples of suitable resinous
materials found at column 7, lines 45-55,
do not constitute curable resins as
claimed, then the use of resins of the type
claimed in the radiation image storage
panel of Arakawa et al. would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
in view of their ready availability and
known properties. (Answer-page 4.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007