Appeal 2007-1926
Application 10/062,234
39). Niklason teaches that its methods “improve the specificity of
mammography with improved lesion margin visibility and [ ] improve early
breast cancer detection” (Niklason, col. 6, ll. 17-21).
Liou teaches that three-dimensional (3D) “image registration
techniques are utilized in the fusion of 3D images obtained from various
modalities such as CT, PET (Positron Emission Tomography), SPECT
(Single Positron Emission Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance
Imaging) and ultrasound imaging techniques” (Liou, col. 2, ll. 51-56).
DISCUSSION
The issue in this appeal is whether the claimed method and apparatus
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made in view of Nields combined with Niklason, Getzinger,
and Liou.
The Examiner states that Nields teaches combining ultrasound data
and x-ray data in a spatially co-related manner (Answer 2). The x-ray data is
generated with a movable radiation source (Answer 3) as required by claim
1. The Examiner asserts that Nields does not teach obtaining three-
dimensional tomosynthetic (x-ray) and three-dimensional ultrasound images
(Answer 3). However, the Examiner argues three-dimensional images
constructed from ultrasound data and x-ray data were known in the art as
evidenced by Getzinger and Niklason, respectively (Answer 3).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that methods of combining three-
dimensional images from various modalities, including CT (x-ray) and
ultrasound were known in the art at taught in Liou (Answer 3). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013