Appeal No. 97-0165 Page 7
Application No. 08/222,808
object has passed the x-ray source but the only reason for
doing so would have been hindsight gleaned from a knowledge of
appellants’ invention. Pantelleria clearly is not interested
in activating the x-ray source after the container to be
inspected passes the
x-ray source because Pantelleria is interested in inspecting
the container itself by subjecting the container to x-rays.
Further, the artisan would have had no reason to modify
Bermbach in such a manner as to provide for activating the x-
ray source after a portion of the vehicle has passed the x-ray
source because the driver of the vehicle in Bermbach is not in
the vehicle at the time of inspection by x-rays so protection
of a driver within the vehicle is of no concern for Bermbach.
Accordingly, we find the subject matter of instant claim 7
to be unobvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, based on
the evidence provided by Bermbach and Pantelleria, because we
find no teaching or suggestion therein for the claimed “light
barrier means positioned along said drive path for activating
said x-ray source when a cab of the truck has passed the x-ray
source.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007