Appeal No. 2004-0612
Application No. 09/531,660
OPINION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-4 and affirm the
rejections of claims 5-9.
Claims 1-4
Claim 1, from which claims 2-4 depend, requires a collimator
mechanism which is removably insertable in an X-ray path between
a sample and a secondary X-ray detector.1 For this claim feature
the examiner relies upon Kuwabara’s view restricting screen 3
(answer, page 3). This screen is a flat plate comprising a
plurality of holes preferably having a hollow tubular member
around each of them (figure 3), is positioned between a
specimen (2) and a collimator (4) having Soller slits (figure 1),
and is linearly movable in a direction perpendicular to the
optical axis of the collimator’s Soller slits to limit the
collimator’s field of view of the sample to that allowed by the
selected hole position and size (col. 2, lines 37-58; col. 3,
lines 61-66; col. 4, lines 2-6 and 24-37; col. 5, lines 1-6;
col. 6, lines 24-37).
The examiner argues that Kuwabara’s “view restricting screen
provides the function of shutting off unwanted and scattered
fluorescent X-rays (column 6 line 29+), therefore it performs the
1 The appellant uses the terms “collimator mechanism” and
“collimator” interchangeably (specification, page 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007