Appeal No. 1997-4259
Application No. 08/259,474
to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention. As indicated on page 4
of the answer, it is the examiner's view that,
[w]ith respect to claims 9 and 30, there is no
basis for "standard mammographic procedures,
intensities and exposure times."
In addition to the foregoing rejections, claims 1 and 12
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Destouet.
Claims 2 through 11, 13 through 17 and 27 through 31
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Destouet in view of appellants’ own specification (page
6, lines 4-20).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 17, mailed January 7, 1997) for the examiner's complete
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007