Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-33 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a)
(2004). The issue turns on a key limitation exhibited in claim 1, and in
similar forms in all the other claims on appeal, namely “disposed on the
detecting face of the detector.” Appellants assert that, “Klotz fails to
disclose the capacitive proximity detection system being disposed on the
detecting face of the detector assembly.” (Br. 10). Examiner asserts the
contrary. Also at issue, especially with respect to claim 15, and its
dependent claims, is whether the sensors for the detection system in Klotz
are disposed on a substrate substantially in a plane.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Group I: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10,
13-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
1. A careful reading of the claims in view of the issues raised in
the Brief and Answer indicate the key limitation to be “…a
collision avoidance array disposed on the detecting face of the
detector and configured for sensing objects.”
2. The Klotz reference discloses “[a] capacitive proximity
detection system for positioning a movable radiation imaging
element support structure with respect to a subject includes a
plurality of sensor plates disposed in a collar assembly around a
portion of an imaging component disposed towards a
subject….” (Klotz, Abstract).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013