Appeal No. 2004-0586
Application No. 09/710,395
some regions being better suited than others to a particular type
of examination. N’Guyen’s device makes it possible to conduct
physical examinations of patients without the need to change
collimators. We find nothing in N’Guyen which would suggest a
detector head having 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 collimator is mounted
to the second portion.
Moreover, it is hard to follow the examiner’s application of
Hasegawa to instant claim 28 since the examiner appears to be
relying on different, mutually exclusive, embodiments in Hasegawa
to provide teachings for various parts of the claimed subject
matter. That is, we agree with appellants’ analysis, at pages 5-
7 of the principal brief, of the examiner’s flawed reliance on
different embodiments of Hasegawa and we adopt this position as
our own.
Since the examiner has not reasonably set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness regarding the subject matter of instant
claim 28, we will not sustain the rejection of this claim under
35 U.S.C. §103.
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007