Appeal No. 1999-2274
Application No. 08/811,787
detectors 16' and 18' and a filter 19 therebetween and an x-ray source 15 for producing
radiation. However, the detectors of Allport are ionization chambers with gas fills and it is
unclear whether these detectors are first and second components of different first and
second materials, as required by the claim. Since we would be required to speculate as to
whether this limitation is disclosed by Allport, we still do not find Allport applicable to the
claims. Claim 5 also requires such first and second different materials as do claims 24
and 39.
With regard to claim 38, Allport does not appear to disclose the claimed
scintillators and pluralities of segments. While the references to Alvarez and Brooks may
be used to teach these elements in the examiner’s estimation, this would still
require a combination with Allport for the teaching of the filter element and, as explained
supra, this would be improper since Allport constitutes nonanalogous art.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 10-16 and
20-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We also note that the examiner makes reference to various references: “Kelcz
paper” [answer-page 6]; EP 0077018; Tofu (JA 0200983) and Bourrat (FR 2468999)
[answer-page 8] in the explanation of the rejections. We have not considered these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007