Appeal No. 1998-1539
Application No. 08/683,186
Appellants argue that the combination of Valkonet and
Jenkins is improper because Jenkins does not relate to a
target transmission tube and that skilled artisans would not
normally look to Jenkins for solutions to a problem in the
field of target transmissive x-ray tubes.
We disagree. Both Valkonet and Jenkins are concerned
with the problem of heat dissipation within an x-ray tube and
the skilled artisan would have been expected to have been
familiar with these systems.
While appellants argue that Jenkins does not relate to
cooling of the anode but only to the exit window, they point
to that portion of Jenkins (column 1, lines 22-26) which
recognizes that there have been heat dissipation problems in
two areas of x-ray tubes, the anode structure and the exit
window. It is true that the remainder of Jenkins’ disclosure
relates to cooling at the exit window, but it is indisputable
that Jenkins recognized the heating problem at the anode and
disclosed that artisans were aware of this problem.
It would appear to us that if the artisan was aware of a
heating problem at both the anode and at the exit window and
that artisan is faced with a solution to the heating problem
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007