Appeal No. 1998-0750
Application 08/232,135
50, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 51 as obvious over
Fukuoka and Kanayama.
In that claims 19-22 and 27 depend directly or indirectly
from independent claim 18, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 21 and 22 as obvious over Fukuoka and Kanayama, or of
claims 19, 20 and 27 as obvious over Fukuoka and Kumar. Claims 2
and 3, which depend from claim 1, are drawn to steps of
integrating first and second current signals, and claim 5, which
depends from claim 4, requires means for comparing integrated
sensed current to a reference integrated current. As such, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 5 as obvious over Fukuoka
and Kanayama or the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 as obvious over Fukuoka, Kanayama and Kumar for the
same reason we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim
18. Neither Kanayama nor Kumar have been shown to relate to a
plurality of integrated currents.
We will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 58 and
dependent claims 59 and 60 as obvious over Fukuoka. Claim 58
recites means for modifying an energy signal applied to a pixel in
response to detection of a noise-related signal in said energy
signal by monitoring means. Fukuoka is silent regarding detection
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007