Appeal No. 2002-0311 Page 4
Application No. 09/030,241
Darrow, which the examiner has applied as the primary reference against the
appellant’s claims, was discussed by the appellant on pages 4 and 5 of the
specification. The appellant there explains that in the Darrow system of superimposing
the position of a probe being advanced to a specific location in the respiratory system, a
series of images is acquired at numerous stages of the respiratory cycle in order to
provide a corrected image as the patient breathes. According to the appellant, this
system has a number of disadvantage. The appellant seeks to improve upon Darrow
by selecting single stage in the respiratory cycle, and utilizing only this point as the
reference point, that is, superposing the images only at this point in the respiratory
cycle. Specification, pages 6-8.
It is the examiner’s view that Darrow discloses all of the subject matter recited in
claim 1 except for sampling and utilizing a number of respiratory stages of the patient
rather than a single one, but that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to modify the Darrow system so that it operates in this fashion, in view of the
teachings of Ben-Haim. The appellant disagrees, for several reasons, which will be
discussed below.
We begin our analysis by noting the following statement by the appellant
regarding Darrow (Brief, page 7):
Darrow deals with exactly the same problem as was faced by the present
Applicants [sic], namely, somehow registering the acquired position of an
invasive device or probe with an image despite changes in the patient’s
body structure caused by the movement of accompanying respiration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007