Appeal No. 2004-0586
Application No. 09/710,395
and concludes that it would have been obvious to provide a
collimator comprising a SPECT collimator side-by-side with an
optional transmission collimator and segment selector circuitry
in the gamma camera of Hasegawa “in order to obtain sequential or
simultaneous recording of both emission and transmission data
with a single detector having a single collimator...” (answer-
page 6).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 28 under 35
U.S.C. §103 since, in our view, the examiner has failed to
provide a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 28 requires that the detector head has a radiation
receiving face that is segmented into “side-by-side first and
second portions,” wherein a transmission radiation source is
disposed across an examination region from the first portion and
a SPECT (single-photon emission computed tomography) collimator
is mounted to the second portion.
Even by the examiner’s apparent admission, Hasegawa lacks
these features. The examiner’s reliance of N’Guyen to provide
this deficiency of Hasegawa is misplaced because N’Guyen does not
teach or suggest a detector head having the distinct first and
second portions required by claim 28. Rather, N’Guyen is
concerned with providing various regions of a collimator, with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007