Appeal No. 2005-2140
Application No. 09/943,355
Although the device might be smaller in width by the
substitution, the device will be larger in overall thickness.
Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9 nor of
the claims grouped therewith, claims 2 through 5, 10 through 13,
and 17 through 20. In addition, since claims 7 and 15 depend
from claims 1 and 9, respectively, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 7 and 15.
Regarding claims 6 and 14 and claims 8 and 16, neither
Saotome I nor Ohyama cures the deficiency of the primary
combination. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 6, 8, 14, and 16.
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection against appellant's claims.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. In claims 1 and 9, from which 6
and 14 ultimately depend, the stimulable phosphor sheet is formed
of a sheet-shaped transparent substrate and a stimulable phosphor
layer and the erasing light source is arranged on one side of the
sheet-shaped transparent substrate. Claims 3 and 11 further
limit claims 6 and 14, respectively, by reciting that the erasing
light source is formed of a transparent sheet with light sources
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007