Appeal 2007-3363
Application 10/342,711
light of a wavelength above 600 nm (Spec. 4:24-5:19), but again the claim is
not so limited.
It is not clear whether it is the support or the colored pigment in the
support that absorbs 30% of the stimulating light and reflects 60% of the
stimulated light. Since no argument is directed to these percentages, this
ambiguity does not affect our analysis. We construe "stimulated light" to
mean light emitted by the stimulable phosphor.
"CsX:Eu" is a cesium halide phosphor doped with europium.
(Spec. 7:21-36.) Claim 1 requires the cesium halide to be cesium bromide or
cesium chloride. Hence, the phosphor could be designated CsBr:Eu or
CsCl:Eu.
THE REJECTION
The examiner has rejected all of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for claiming subject matter that would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The examiner relies on a
published patent application and two patents as evidence in support of the
rejection. (Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 4.) The published application is:
Erich Hell, Manfred Fuchs, Detlef Mattern, Bernhard Schmitt
& Paul Leblans, Binderless storage phosphor screen with
needle shaped crystals, US 2003/0091729 A1 (pub'd 15 May
2003) (Hell).
Paul Leblans is also named as an inventor on the application currently before
us. The patents are:
Kenji Takahashi et al., Radiation image storage panel,
U.S. Patent 4,394,581 (issued 19 July 1983) (Takahashi); and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013