Appeal No. 2006-3152 Page 5
Application No. 10/168,492
reading out of the information of a first image stored in the storage layer and the
subsequent storage of information of a second image in the storage layer. Appellants
argue that in Umemoto the secondary erasing operation is performed at a time
immediately before a further X-ray image is recorded. Appellants note that the claimed
invention prevents the occurrence of ghosts during the entire time between the reading of
a first image and the storage of a second image. Appellants also argue that there is no
support for the examiner’s assertion that erasure light in Umemoto can be output onto the
storage layer during the entire period between the reading out and the subsequent storage
of information of a second image. Appellants also assert that there is no support for the
position that Umemoto keeps the secondary light off until immediately before a
subsequent image is to be stored in order to save energy. Finally, appellants argue that
Umemoto fails to teach or suggest the claimed “control means” of claims 18 and 29
[brief, pages 7-10].
The examiner responds that Umemoto is simply saving energy by not turning on the
secondary light source until just before a subsequent image is to be stored. The examiner
notes that the claim only requires that the light source “can be switched into an on state”
during the entire period. The examiner asserts that the secondary light source in
Umemoto is capable of such operation such that it meets the claimed invention. The
examiner also points out that in the embodiment shown in Figure 5 of Umemoto, the
secondary lights are capable of being on simultaneously with the recording of the second
image such that they are on continuously for the entire process [answer, pages 7-8].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 18, but not the rejection of claim
29. We agree with appellants that Umemoto fails to teach a control means that drives the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007