Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715
what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
ANALYSIS
Appellants have contended that Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-11 and 13-33 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). Reviewing the
findings of facts cited above, we found that the elements required for a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) were present. Appellants’ arguments
have been considered. We find the sensors of Klotz to be on the detecting
face of the detector. Admittedly they are not of the same configuration as
described in the Appellants’ embodiment described in their Specification,
but the Examiner does not seem to have erred in describing the sensors as
being on the detecting face in Klotz, within the common meaning of the
term. Though not separately argued by Appellants, the Examiner did also
present evidence in Watanabe of the sensors being on the face opposite the
detecting face, as claimed in claims 6 and 28.
Concerning the second issue, the Examiner asserts that the plurality of
sensors in Klotz are disposed on a substrate, the dielectric material 134, and
are substantially in a plane. While it appears that a preferred embodiment of
the disclosed invention confines the sensors to being only within that plane,
we found that the Examiner did not err in reading the sensors of Klotz to
satisfy the claimed language, being within the plane shown in Klotz’s
Figures 3A, 3B, and especially 3C.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013