Appeal 2007-1733
Application 09/978,275
B. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vuylsteke and Aach.
C. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Vuylsteke and Wood.
Appellant contends1 that Vuylsteke does not anticipate the invention
as recited independent claim 1. Particularly, Appellant contends that
Vuylsteke does not teach or suggest a characteristic calculation unit that
obtains a characteristic of the input signal by using a function based on
information indicating an exposure dose with which the radiographic image
has been produced. (Br.18.) For these same reasons, Appellant contends
that the combination of Vuylsteke and Aach or Wood does not render claims
4 through 6 unpatentable. In response, the Examiner contends that
Vuylsteke’s disclosure of decomposing a radiographic image signal into
detail image pixel values teaches the claim limitation. (Answer 17.)
1 In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When
that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to rebut. Id.; see
also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (finding rebuttal evidence unpersuasive). If the applicant
produces rebuttal evidence of adequate weight, the prima facie case of
unpatentability is dissipated. Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
Thereafter, patentability is determined in view of the entire record. Id.
However, Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013