Appeal No. 96-0659
Application 08/081,040
invention. Thus, we agree with the examiner that the Tam declaration fails to provide
evidence that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 was legally incorrect.
For all the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 and of claims 4 and 5 which are grouped therewith.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and is argued separately by appellant. Claim 2 recites
that the missing data is estimated using a means for interpolating. Appellant argues that
there is no suggestion in Tam ’926 of calculating missing data by interpolating between the
boundaries of acquired cone beam data as recited in claim 2 [brief, page 11]. The
examiner argues that the act of estimating missing data in Tam ’926 and inserting this
missing data between the acquired cone beam data is an interpolation as claimed
[answer, page 9].
We agree with the examiner. Claim 2 does not recite what values form the basis for
the interpolation. Claim 2 simply recites that an interpolation serves to provide the
estimated values between the acquired cone beam data. We agree with the examiner that
the estimation of values disclosed in Tam ’926 broadly meets the claimed recitation that
an interpolation occurs. To fill in gaps within known data is broadly considered to be an
interpolation within the meaning of that term. Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim
interpretation fail here for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the “means”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007