Ex Parte Schmand et al - Page 4

            Appeal 2007-1868                                                                                  
            Application 10/441,682                                                                            

            We also note that the prior publication of Cherry, as a published patent application,             
            was more than 1 year before the filing of the instant application, and would                      
            constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  Further, we note that there is no                 
            evidence on record (in the form of declarations or a disclosure of the doctoral                   
            thesis) concerning Dr. Doshi’s work with the inventors of the Cherry patent.  Thus,               
            we will not further address these arguments as they are premised on speculation                   
            and not supported by evidence of record.                                                          
                   Representative claim 1, recites “an air gap defined between adjacent said                  
            scintillator elements.”  Representative claim 1 does not define the dimensions of                 
            the air gap, in either relative or absolute terms.  Thus, we concur with the                      
            Examiner’s claim interpretation that the scope of the claim includes any air gap                  
            between the scintillator elements.                                                                
                   As discussed by the Examiner and Appellants, Cherry teaches that in the                    
            embodiment of figure 3 there is an array of scintillator elements (crystals).  See                
            Figure 3.  These elements are placed in a grid, item 18, the walls of the grid are                
            about 5 mm high and about 0.3 mm thick.  Col. 8, ll. 50-58.  As can be seen in                    
            Figure 3 the crystals extend significantly beyond the top of the grid.  Cherry                    
            teaches that the grid is used to hold the crystals in place while a slurry of reflective          
            material hardens and holds the crystals together.  Col. 8, ll. 58-66.  As discussed               
            above, the Examiner finds that the grid is removed after the slurry hardens and the               
            space previously occupied by the grid creates the claimed air gap.  Appellants’                   
            arguments have not addressed or disputed this finding by the Examiner.  Thus, by                  
            Appellants’ acquiescence to the Examiner’s finding, we find that the Examiner has                 
            established that there is an air gap between the crystals.                                        
                   Further, we note that Appellants state on page 12 of the Brief “Even in the                
            short length wherein the grid is positioned, there is no air gap between the crystals,            

                                                      4                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013