Appeal No. 96-3394 Page 3
Application No. 08/178,748
In addition, the examiner relies on appellant’s admitted
prior art [APA] at pages 1-2 of the specification regarding the
use of a scintillator associated with a screen and a
photocathode for the purpose of converting X-rays to electrons.
Claims 6 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of APA and further in view
of Kaseman.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
We have carefully considered the evidence before us
including, inter alia, the arguments of appellant and the
examiner and we find ourselves in agreement with appellant that
the examiner has improperly based the obviousness rejection on
appellant’s own disclosure.
Independent claim 6 requires “a thin layer of amorphous
diamond-like carbon formed to cover the plurality of insulating
parts.” The examiner recognizes that neither Ichikawa nor APA
discloses this explicit claim limitation. The examiner turns
to Kaseman, citing column 3, lines 35-37, for the use of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007