Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
silicon drift photodetector (SDP), but merely argues that the reference fails
to cure the basic deficiency in the Examiner’s proposed combination of
references (Br. 10-11).
Such an argument, however, does not overcome the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for the reasons previously discussed. Furthermore,
we see no reason why skilled artisan would not have relied on the teachings
of Iwanczyk in using an SDD in conjunction with gamma-ray detectors
employing scintillators essentially for the reasons stated by the Examiner
(Answer 10, 13). Moreover, Iwanczyk constitutes analogous art.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 12 is sustained. Likewise, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3 as it falls with claim 12.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not established that the
Examiner erred in combining Zeng and Miraldi in establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness for representative claim 11. Moreover, Appellant has
not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for
representative claim 12.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-15,
18, 19, and 21-25 is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013