Appeal No. 2003-1442
Application No. 09/359,037
admitted prior art at the bottom of column 1 using scanning
systems at least clearly indicate that the source of the energy
beams is constantly enabled but not necessarily indicating that
the luminescent material itself is constantly illuminated.
As to this first stated rejection, we reverse the rejection
as to independent claim 1, 22 and 39 as well as their respective
dependent claims. On the other hand, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 40 and its respective dependent claim 55, which
has not been argued.
We turn now to the second stated rejection of claims 1, 2,
6, 7, 39 and 40 as being anticipated by Storti. Generally, for
the reasons set forth by appellants in the brief and reply brief
we reverse the rejection of each of these claims and focus now on
the recitations of independent claims 1, 39 and 40.
To the extent that Storti indicates that the storage
operation may occur, the readout operational functions at the
bottom of column 4 beginning at line 47 indicate that the ability
of the known luminescent material to store information does not
require a continuous illumination of the luminescent material as
required by independent claims 1 and 39, and the feature of the
constant operational source of radiant energy of independent
claim 40 is not indicated as well. On the other hand, to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007