Ex parte MATSUSHITA - Page 8

          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                    
               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.                                    


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007