Appeal No. 96-0659
Application 08/081,040
Appellant’s argument that Tam ’926 does not disclose the calculation of corrected
image data nor a “summing means” as recited in claim 1 is also not agreed with. The loop
involving block 72 in Figure 9 of Tam ’926 clearly calculates corrected data which is
summed with the cone beam data in block 62.
Appellant argues that the “means” elements of claim 1 have not been properly
interpreted in accordance with the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 [reply brief].
Appellant points to the methodology shown in Figure 5 of the application as the means of
claim 1, and appellant argues that the methodology shown therein is not performed by the
Tam ’926 device. Under the facts of this case, we agree with the examiner that his
interpretation of the recitations of claim 1 is consistent with the statute and with case law
developed on this topic.
The statute requires that a means in a claim “shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure ... described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The
structure which appellant has disclosed that carries out all the functions shown in Figure 5
is a box numbered 25 in Figure 2 and labeled “Image Reconstructor.” This box is
apparently some form of computation device such as a calculator or computer. The
functions in Tam ’926 are also implemented by a box numbered 100 in Figure 12 and
labeled “Processor.” Appellant has not pointed to anything in the application disclosure or
in the Tam ’926 disclosure which would support the position that the processor of Tam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007