Appeal 2007-1733
Application 09/978,275
Where the claimed subject matter involves more than the simple
substitution one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). That is, “there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis by first noting that independent claims 1, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 20, and 21 all recite calculating a first characteristic of the input
image signal using a function based on a first information indicating an
exposure dose. (Br., Claim Appendix.) We find that Vuylsteke’s disclosure
reasonably teaches that limitation, as broadly claimed.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, we have found that
Vuylsteke teaches a radiographic image signal that, upon decomposition,
yields a set of detail image values wherein each detail image includes a set
of transform coefficients expressing the relative contribution to the original
image of the corresponding basis function out of a set of predetermined basis
functions, each of the functions representing local detail at a specific
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013