Ex Parte Kapur et al - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-1926                                                                             
               Application 10/062,234                                                                       

                                         STATEMENT OF CASE                                                  
                      The claims are drawn to an apparatus and method for generating an                     
               image of an object.  Three-dimensional information about the object is                       
               acquired from a movable radiation source and an ultrasound probe is                          
               combined to generate a three-dimensional image of the object.                                
                      Claims 1-10 and 12-20, all the pending claims, stand rejected over                    
               prior art (Br. 2).  The Examiner relies on the following evidence of                         
               unpatentability:                                                                             
                      Getzinger   U.S. Pat. 5,640,956  Jun. 24, 1997                                        
                      Liou   U.S. Pat. 5,839,440  Nov. 24, 1998                                             
                      Niklason  U.S. Pat. 5,872,828  Feb. 16, 1999                                          
                      Nields  U.S. Pat. 6,459,925 B1  Oct. 1, 2002                                          
                      Claims 1-10 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                         
               obvious over Nields in view of Niklason, Getzinger, and Liou (Answer 2).                     
               Claim 10 was separately argued and stands or falls apart from claims 1-9 and                 
               12-20 (Br. 111).  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).  We select claim 1 as                        
               representative of claims 2-9 and 12-20.  Claims 1 and 10 read as follows:                    
                      1.  A method for generating an image of an object of interest,                        
                      said method comprising:                                                               
                            acquiring a first three-dimensional dataset of the object at                    
                      a first position using a radiation source and a detector, the                         
                      radiation source being movable with respect to the detector to a                      
                      plurality of positions including the first position;                                  
                                                                                                           
               1 According to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), “[a]ny claim argued separately                  
               should be placed under a subheading identifying the claim by number.”                        
               Claim 10 was not properly argued because the separate arguments for its                      
               patentability were not placed under a subheading which specifically                          
               identified it by claim number.  Nonetheless, we have considered Appellants’                  
               separate arguments directed to claim 10.                                                     
                                                     2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013