Appeal No. 2006-2314 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/856,225
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellants argue claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 as a
group. See page 6-11 of the brief. Accordingly, we select claim
1 as the representative claim. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
In the case before us, the examiner has basically determined
that Iversen discloses, expressly or inherently, a method for
optically segmenting a target media (see, e.g., layer 13, fig. 2)
for use in an imaging (x-ray detection) device that includes the
step of forming a slot in the target media, and repeating that
step to form at least one other slot in the target medium to form
a plurality of slots. See, for example, drawing figure 2 and
column 6, lines 3-10 of Iversen. The plurality of slots of
Iversen combine to form optical boundaries that segment the
target media into a cellular structure to assist in the control
and distribution of scintillation light therein.
Appellants’ principal dispute with the examiner’s
anticipation determination centers on appellants assertion that
the claimed formation of voids within the target media, as set
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007