Appeal 2007-1926
Application 10/062,234
skill in the art to have combined three-dimensional ultrasound and x-ray data
to obtain “all possible information from all angles regarding the three-
dimensional breast tissue while reducing the time it takes to acquire the 3D
information by not having to take multiples images which are then combined
to form the 3D data” (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that there is no motivation to have combined
Nields with the secondary references because “Nields itself would provide a
solution to the motivation suggested by the Examiner” (Br. 10). They argue
that “Nields provides three-dimensional information from all angles
regarding the breast tissue” (Br. 10). Consequently, they assert “[t]here is no
need to directly acquire the three-dimensional x-ray or ultrasound dataset”
(Br. 10).
In making an obviousness determination, it is necessary to consider
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art in the context
of the level of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 465 (1966).
The Examiner provides evidence that combining three-dimensional
information from different imaging modalities was known in the art prior to
the application’s filing date. Both Nields and Getzinger teach combining
ultra-sound and x-ray image data in register to produce more comprehensive
information about a biological tissue, such as breast tissue (Nields, col. 3, ll.
9-33; Getzinger, col. 3, ll. 41-44). Each patent describes a different
approach to combining ultrasound and x-ray data to produce information
about the tissue in three-dimensions. Liou explicitly teaches that “prior art
3D registration techniques” have been utilized to blend images obtained
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013