Appeal No. 96-0659
Application 08/081,040
of claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We now consider the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tam ’926 and Tam ’183. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the cone beam
data is weighted prior to its application to the filter. The examiner cites Tam ’183 as
specifically teaching the weighting of cone beam data prior to filtering. Since both Tam
patents are directed to the same subject matter, the examiner explains that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to weight the cone beam data in Tam ’926 in the manner
suggested by Tam ’183 [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellant’s only argument with respect to
this rejection is that claim 3 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 [brief, pages 11-
12]. Since we have previously determined that the arguments with respect to claim 1 are
not persuasive of error by the examiner, and since appellant makes no additional
arguments with respect to claim 3, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
In summary, we have sustained both of the examiner’s rejections of the claims.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-5 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007