Ex parte SIVERS - Page 4



               1Application for patent filed June 07, 1995. According to               
          the appellant, this application is a continuation o                          
          08/405,396, filed March 15, 1995, w07/991,050, filed December                
          15, 1992.                                                                    
          plane than the other;                                                        
               means for interpolating projection data based on the                    
          first and second transmitted data extracted by said data                     
          extracting means to produce interpolated projection data at                  
          the position of the reference plane; and                                     
               reconstructing means for reconstructing a tomogram at the               
          position of the reference plane based on the interpolated                    
          projection data obtained by said interpolating means.                        
                                                                                      
               The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:                
          Heuscher et al. (A)     4,965,726             Oct. 23, 1990                  
          Heuscher       (B)     5,262,946              Nov. 16, 1993                  
          (filed Aug, 14,                                                              
          1990)                                                                        
               Claims 4 through 7, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35                   
          U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Heuscher (B).                        
               Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                     
          anticipated by Heuscher(B) or, in the alternative, under 35                  
          U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Heuscher (B) in view of Heuscher                
          (A).                                                                         
               Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the                    
          Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for                  
          the respective details thereof.                                              


                                       OPINION                                         

                                          4                                            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007