Appeal No. 2001-0837
Application No. 09/131,177
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 11) and the
answer (paper number 12) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5 through 11 and 13 through 19.
The examiner and the appellant both agree that Klasen
discloses first and second layers of multiple elongated leaves
that are mounted perpendicularly with respect to each other
(answer, page 3; brief, page 5). The examiner acknowledges
(answer, page 3) that the right angle between the two layers
cannot be varied by rotating one layer relative to the other.
According to the examiner (answer, page 3), “Cosman teaches that
it is well known in the X-ray irradiation therapy art to allow
rotation of radiation blocking members relative to each other to
increase resolution coverage (see figures 5 and 7).” From this
teaching, the examiner concludes (answer, page 3) that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
rotate the layers of leaves of Klasen et al. motivated by the
benefits sought in both Klasen et al. and Cosman of reduced
healthy tissue dosage.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007