Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
Iwanczyk teaches that the SDP is coupled to an elongated, rod-shaped
scintillator normal to its elongated dimension (Answer 6).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
ISSUES
(1) Has Appellant established that the Examiner erred in combining
Zeng and Miraldi in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for
representative claim 11?
(2) Has Appellant persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness for representative claim 12?
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s findings regarding the
specific teachings of the cited references (Answer 3-10) are not in dispute
except with respect to the disputed points noted above. Accordingly, we
will adopt the Examiner’s factual findings regarding the cited references as
they pertain to the undisputed claim limitations.
Zeng discloses a slat-collimated gamma camera with a detector head
22 with a radiation-receiving side that faces an object (e.g., patient) being
studied. The detector head 22 includes an array of detection elements 106
that each individually detect radiation incident thereon. The detector
elements are made of scintillating materials and are in optical
communication with a photodiode or other appropriate photodetector. A
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013