Appeal 2006-2020
Application 10/267,152
Rosen, Crain, or Yeh, claim 8 as unpatentable over Burris in view of Rosen,
Crain, or Yeh, further in view of Henderson, and claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 as
unpatentable over Burris in view of Rosen or in view of Crain or Yeh,
further in view of Rosen.
The Examiner provides reasons in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed October 5, 2005). Appellants present opposing arguments
in the Brief (filed May 13, 2005).
ISSUE
The basic issue in this case is whether it would have been obvious, in
view of any of Rosen, Crain or Yeh, to provide one or more handles on the
display device of Burris’ cart-supported diagnostic medical imaging
ultrasound system to assist the operator in positioning the display device.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants do not allege that Burris lacks any of the limitations recited
in claim 1, with the exception of the handle located on the image
display.
2. Burris discloses a medical imaging ultrasound system comprising an
image generator 200 housed in a cart 710 and a display device 730
supported on the cart via swiveling arms 740, 750. The operator can
horizontally position display device 730 outside the cart using arms
740, 750. Swiveling arm 750 connects to display device 730 with a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013