Appeal No. 96-0659
Application 08/081,040
information and does not use cone beam data in a one-step process [brief, page 10]. The
examiner responds that claim 1 does not recite that the estimated values are calculated
from the cone beam data. We agree with the examiner that appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a means for receiving cone beam data and “estimating values not
provided by the cone beam data.” This recitation does not require that the estimates
come from the cone beam data. Appellant attempted to insert the word “therefrom” after
estimating in this clause, but such amendment was denied entry after final because it
raised new issues. We would certainly agree that the word “therefrom” inserted at the
intended location would remove Tam ’926 as an anticipatory reference. Appellant,
however, is asking that the claim be interpreted as if the amendment had been entered.
We decline to implicitly read limitations into the claim when the limitations could have been
explicitly added so easily.
Appellant also argues that Tam ’926 “does not disclose any means ‘for calculating
corrected image data f ( r P )’ from the ‘estimated values’ as recited in claim 1” [brief, page
C
10]. It is critical that the underlined word in appellant’s argument does not appear in claim
1. Appellant is again asking that the claim be interpreted not as literally drafted but in
accordance with the disclosure of the invention. We again agree with the examiner that
limitations should not be read into the claim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007