Appeal No. 2004-0021 Page 8
Application No. 09/246,193
The obviousness rejections of claims 3 to 7
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 3, the only independent claim subject to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
reads as follows:
An apparatus for imaging photons and neutrons, comprising:
a frame, said frame having a disk guide and a rod guide;
a drive rod mounted in said rod guide of said frame, said drive rod having
an end;
a first disk having a first real grid and a first imaginary grid, said first disk is
attached to said end of said drive rod;
a second disk having a second real grid aligned with said first real grid
whereby a real grid pair is formed and having a second imaginary grid aligned
with said first imaginary grid whereby an imaginary gird pair is formed, said
second disk is rotationally guided by said disk guide in said frame;
a connecting rod slidably mounted to said first disk and attached to said
second disk;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007