Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
collimator 100 is arranged on the radiation receiving side of the detector
head 22. The collimator includes multiple slats 102 spaced apart from each
other such that multiple detector elements 106 are arranged between
adjacent pairs of slats (Zeng, abstract, col. 6, ll. 57-67; col. 7, ll. 23-41; Figs.
4, 5A, 5B, 8).
Miraldi discloses a radiation sensitive device comprising a collimator
and a scintillation crystal. Specifically, Miraldi teaches mounting
photomultipliers 96, 98 (20, 22 in Fig. 2) to opposite ends of a scintillation
crystal 86 having a rectangular cross section (18 in Fig. 2) (Miraldi, Figs. 2
and 7; col. 4, ll. 17-32; col. 5, l. 55 – col. 6, l. 49).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013