Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715
reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements, and find that
the array is indeed disposed on the detecting face of the
detector, as claimed. They are not taught to be on the back face
in Klotz, but are found on the detecting end, the side facing the
subject. Contrast this to the arrangement in Watanabe, where
the sensor is disposed on the back face of the detector. We find
this a permissible interpretation of the claimed language for the
purpose of examination.
6. Claim 15 claims the detection system somewhat differently, as
comprising “a plurality of sensors disposed on a substrate
substantially in a plane.” Appellants argue that “[t]he sensor
plates disclosed by Klotz are disposed so as to be conformal
with the curved surface structure of tube like collar assembly
[130].” (Br. 12) and “[t]hus, the Klotz reference fails to
disclose a plurality of sensors disposed on a substrate
substantially in a plane.” (Br. 12). However, Klotz describes
the pattern of the plates as: “Sensor plate elements 300 are
disposed around collar assembly in a sensing pattern 305 as
illustrated in FIG. 3(C) (a cross-sectional view of one-half of
the donut-shaped collar assembly cut along an equatorial
plane).” (Klotz, col. 5, ll. 5-8). Examiner finds this a teaching
of the claimed “substantially in a plane,” and we find the same.
Appellants point out that the elements extend above and below
the plane, as shown in Figure 3(C), but they are also in the
plane as illustrated. The plates of Klotz “are suspended in a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013