Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
The Examiner has attempted to pick and choose
individual features of the devices disclosed in the
cited references in order to assemble the claimed
device without providing any motivation . . . to do
so. Such a hindsight reconstruction of the
invention is improper within the § 103 context
(Brief, page 7).
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 9 is
reversed.
The additional reference to Chiu discloses method and
apparatus for comparing a working image (i.e., injured brain
slice image 12a in Figure 3) with a previously acquired
reference image (i.e., healthy brain slice image 12b in Figure
3). Although we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 5) that
images produced via radiation are disclosed by Chiu, we
nevertheless agree with the appellant that Chiu "fails to cure
the deficiencies of the other references discussed above"
(Brief, page 8). The obviousness rejection of claims 6
through 8 and 10 through 12 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007