Appeal No. 2003-1278 Page 5
Application No. 09/577,701
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Muehllehner's laminar or planar scintillation
crystal with a pixilated scintillation layer optically coupled to a light guide which is then
optically coupled to an array of position sensitive photomultiplier tubes.1
Since the examiner has not established that it would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Muehllehner's laminar or planar scintillation crystal to be a pixilated scintillation layer for
the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 4 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In addition, the examiner's position that Muehllehner's light guide includes an
array of trapezoidal light collectors is shear speculation unsupported by the teachings of
Muehllehner. In that regard, while Muehllehner teaches that the pedestals of the light
guide 45 shown in Figure 2 are separated from each other by V-shaped grooves 15, it
is not inherent2 that the pedestals form an array of trapezoidal light collectors.
1 U.S. Patent No. 6,462,341 to Muehllehner (copy attached) teaches a pixilated scintillation layer
optically coupled to a light guide which is then optically coupled to an array of position sensitive
photomultiplier tubes.
2 When a reference is silent about an asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the
missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would
be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007