Appeal No. 2004-0586
Application No. 09/710,395
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hasegawa et al. (Hasegawa) 5,376,795 Dec. 27, 1994
N’Guyen 5,917,189 Jun. 29, 1999
Kaplan WO 91/00048 Jan. 10, 1991
(Published World Intell. Prop. Org. Application)
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-17, 19-26 and 28-30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites Hasegawa and N’Guyen, adding Kaplan to this combination
with regard to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 29 and 30.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to independent claim 28, the examiner applies
Hasegawa by asserting that Hasegawa teaches essentially
everything but that “the SPECT collimator and the optional
transmission collimator are positioned (e.g., mounted) side-by-
side to the radiation receiving face wherein the radiation
receiving face portion under the optional transmission collimator
is designated as a first region and the radiation receiving face
portion under the SPECT collimator is designated as a second
region” (answer-page 6). The examiner then turns to N’Guyen to
supply a teaching of a collimator having a first and second
region with each region comprising different collimator types,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007