Appeal No. 2000-1003
Application No. 08/631,465
and why this apparatus would have been modified in view of
Hoshino, Ito and Bowen in such a manner as to result in an
apparatus of the type defined by the aforementioned independent
claims. These circumstances compel us to determine that the
examiner has failed to carry his initial burden.
For the above stated reasons, the section 103 rejection
based on Mosely, Barnes, Hoshino, Ito and Bowen will be sustained
with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 22 and 325
but will not be sustained with respect to independent claims 23,
27 and 29 as well as the claims which depend therefrom which are
claims 24, 25, and 30. We also will not sustain the examiner’s
corresponding section 103 rejection of independent claim 34
because, as explained earlier, no adequate basis exists for the
examiner’s belief that Mosely discloses an electrostatic
collimator grid as required by this claim.
The section 103 rejection based on Mosely, Barnes, Hoshino,
Ito, Bowen and Shiraishi
We will not sustain this rejection as applied to claims 26,
28 and 31 since these claims depend from parent claims which are
5
5 In sustaining the rejection of these claims, we have
followed the appellants’ claim-grouping statement that “claims 2-
7 [sic, claims 2 and 4-7] and 13 will stand or fall with claim 1,
claims 16-18 will stand or fall with claim 15, and claim 22 will
stand or fall with claim 20" (brief, page 5).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007