Appeal No. 1997-2566
Application No. 08/330,642
unpatentable over Kwasnick in view of Galves, Muller and
Englert.1
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections.
Although the examiner recognizes that Kwasnick does not
specifically teach that the cesium iodide deposited layer of
the scintillator comprises needle-shaped projections, the
examiner reasons that, based on Galves, "[i]t would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention that the deposited cesium iodide in the process
of Kwasnick can be deposited such that it forms 'needle-shaped'
projections on the scintillator surface" (page 4 of Answer,
first paragraph). As for the claimed requirement of
conformingly disposing the membrane around and in intimate
contact with the protrusions, the examiner reasons that because
Kwasnick discloses that the membrane cover can be within 10 µm
of the first surface 34, and that Galves shows a needle
1Since appellants state at page 9 of the principal brief
that the appealed claims "stand or fall together," we will
focus solely upon the examiner's rejection of claim 1 over
Kwasnick in view of Galves and Muller.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007