Appeal No. 2006-3152 Page 9
Application No. 10/168,492
The claims not specifically argued stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 20, 23, 24, 26, and 27, but
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 31, 32, and 34-41.
We now consider the rejection of claims 28 and 42 based on Umemoto and Muller.
Appellants make the same arguments we considered above and additionally argue that
Muller does not overcome the deficiencies of Umemoto. Appellants also argue that there
is no showing of motivation to combine Umemoto and Muller [brief, pages 13-17].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 28 but not the rejection of claim
42. Claim 28 is similar to claim 18 except that claim 28 recites an X-ray cassette. The
examiner cites Muller as teaching that such X-ray cassettes were well known in the art.
We sustain the rejection of claim 28 for essentially the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 18. Appellants have offered no persuasive arguments as to why the
teachings of Umemoto cannot be applied to an X-ray cassette. We do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 42 because claim 42 depends from claim 30, and Umemoto
fails to teach the invention of claim 30 for reasons discussed above.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 18-20, 23, 24, and
26-28, but we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 29-32, and 34-43.
Therefore, the decision of the rejecting claims 18-20, 23, 24, 26-32, and 34-43 is
affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007