Appeal No. 1997-2030
Application 08/400,287
into a digital signal to obtain digital image data; and
image displaying means for displaying an X-ray image by reading out said
digital image data from said image processing means.
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Grossel et al. (Grossel) 3,835,314 Sep. 10, 1974
Yokouchi et al. (Yokouchi) 5,022,063 Jun. 04, 1991
Nields et al. (Nields) 5,119,409 Jun. 02, 1992
Claims 25 through 27, 29 through 31, 33 through 35 and 37 through 39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yokouchi In view of Grossel.
Claims 28, 32 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yokouchi in view of Grossel and Nields.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 25 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of the
Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suqqestions found in the prior art, or by
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 5, 1996. Appellants filed a reply on February 24,
1997. Examiner mailed an Office communication on April 11, 2000 stating that the reply has been entered
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007