Appeal No. 2000-1325
Application No. 08/842,758
that the invention is present in the claims. We find the
substance of the admission to be true with respect to the
original claims. This is because original claim 1 recites steps
(a), (b) and (c) of claim 1 on appeal, and the last recitation of
original claim 3 includes generating a spatial-domain
reconstruction of the object based on the K-space reconstruction
of the imaged object, which recitation corresponds to step (d) of
appealed claim 1 that calls for generating an image from a K-
space signal1. Furthermore, because the invention of claim 1 is
a process for imaging an object, the last step of the process
would be generating an image of the object. Contrary to the
examiner’s position, the original claims are part of the
specification. 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
1 Applying a discrete Fourier transform as defined in step (c) of
appealed claim 1 is described in appellants’ specification from
page 4, line 28, to page 7, line 11. Significantly, it has not
been shown that step (c) is not fully described or enabled by
this disclosure.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007