Appeal No. 1997-2030
Application 08/400,287
not teach an overlapping range for the diameter of the output image of the X-ray image
intensifier tube nor does Grossel teach that the ratio of the diameter of the input image to
the diameter of the output image ranges from 5 to 7.
Furthermore, we note that Appellants' disclosure shows that these particular
dimensions and ratios enhance the performance of the X-ray image intensifier tube over
the prior art X-ray image intensifier tube. See figures 4 and 5 and page 9 through 11 of
Appellants' specification.
Furthermore, we find that the Examiner has not shown any evidence or specific
findings that the references as applied suggest making the modifications of the disclosed
dimensions in ratios to obtain the Appellants' invention.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266
n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is further established that "[s]uch a
suggestion may come from the nature of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to
look to references relating to possible solutions to that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007