Appeal No. 1997-2030
Application 08/400,287
limitation. In particular, Appellants' independent claim 30 recites "a video
camera picking up the output optical image, said video camera having a plurality of
scanning modes and a beam scanning surface thereof which is the same for all of said
plurality of scanning modes". We note that Yokouchi teaches in column 4, lines 45 through
47 and column 6, lines 25 through 27, that in the radiographic mode which includes the
second, third and fourth scanning modes, the scanning area of the TV camera is the same.
Therefore, we find that Yokouchi does meet the limitation as recited in Appellants'
independent claim 30 because the claim does not preclude reading these plurality of scan
modes as being simply these multiple radiographic image modes.
On pages 13 and 14 of the brief, Appellants argue that independent claim 30
recites specific dimensions of the input and output diameter of the X-ray image intensi-fier
tube and a specific ratio of the diameter of the image input area to the image output area
of a range of 4 to 8 or 5 to 7. Appellants argue that Yokouchi and Grossel do not suggest
or teach specific dimensions or ratio range of 4 to 8 or 5 to 7 as recited in these claims.
We note that claim 30 recites "a diameter of an input image of said X-ray
image intensifier tube ranging from 305 to 406 mm, a diameter of an output image of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007