Appeal 2007-1868
Application 10/441,682
OPINION
Appellants argue, on page 11 of the Brief, that Cherry teaches that the
crystals are held in place with a grid and that the spaces between the crystals is
filled with a reflective material that cures and holds the crystals together. (Brief
11.) Accordingly, Appellants conclude that there is no air gap between the
adjacent crystals as claimed. (Brief 12.) Further, Appellants state that inventor
Niraj K. Doshi is common to the Cherry reference and that Dr. Doshi and Dr.
Cherry were working together on the project that became the Cherry patent while
Dr. Doshi was a doctoral student. (Brief 12.) Appellants argue that the doctoral
thesis of Dr. Doshi does not identify that the there is an air gap between the
crystals. (Brief 13.)
The Examiner responds on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer, by stating:
Cherry does disclose (in the embodiment of Fig. 3) that the grid (18) which
holds the scintillating crystals in place before the gap of 0.3 mm between the
crystals is filled with a slurry of reflective material, is used only in the
intermediary step of forming the scintillating array, which means that the
grid (18) is removed after the crystals are filled with the slurry and the PTFE
tape is positioned around it to hold the crystals together. This means that
after the grid is removed, there is an air gap left between the crystals, having
a height at least as big as the height of the grid, which is approximately 5
mm (see Cherry, Co1. 8, lines 54-55, which states that the height of the grid
is approximately 5 millimeters); 2) the claims do not disclose that the air gap
is along the entire height of the scintillating crystals, which means that the 5
mm air gap that is left open after the grid is removed is enough to satisfy the
limitations of the claim "an air gap defined between adjacent said scintillator
elements."
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Initially we note that though there is a common inventor between the
Cherry patent and the instant application, the inventive entities are different. Thus
the Cherry patent is to “another” and as such prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013