Appeal No. 1998-1539
Application No. 08/683,186
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn, first, to the rejection of independent claim 5.
The examiner explains that Valkonet teaches an x-ray tube with
a loop-shaped cathode and a transmission anode/window assembly
while Jenkins suggests enhancing the thermal dissipation of an
x-ray tube window by applying a thin metallic layer to its
surface so that the layer is in thermal contact with the
metallic walls of the tube in order to conduct heat away from
the window. The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide the Valkonet window with a heat removal
disk-shaped metal layer as taught by Jenkins.
It appears to us that the examiner has set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
independent claim 5, explaining the differences between the
prior art and the claimed subject matter, establishing the
level of skill of the artisan and providing a reasonable
explanation as to why the claimed subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007