Appeal No. 2001-0628
Application No. 09/118,665
disclosed that the positioning fixtures of Figs. 1
through 42 could be utilized with an imaging unit
having a vertically extending primary coil 368 (Fig.
43) rather than a horizontally extending imaging coil.
. . .
...[i]t would be apparent to a person skilled in
the imaging art that the positioning fixtures
illustrated in Figs. 1 through 42 of the application
drawings could be utilized with the upright imaging
unit of Fig. 43 rather than a horizontal imaging unit.
The Examiner has not explained why the positioning
fixtures of Figs. 1-42 can not be utilized with the
vertical imaging unit of Fig. 43 rather than the
horizontal imaging unit [brief, pages 12 and 13].
Contrary to the appellants’ assertion, the description of
the vertically extending MRI primary coil 368 on specification
pages 37 and 38 does not expressly indicate that the earlier
described “positioning fixtures” which grip a portion of a
patient’s body adjacent to a joint with a cuff could be utilized
with the vertically extending MRI primary coil. The description
of the MRI primary coil 368, however, cannot be read in a vacuum.
When the reference on page 37 to the “positioning fixtures” is
read within the context of the specification as a whole, it
becomes clear that the appellants intended it to be inclusive of
the previously described cuffs for gripping a portion of the
patient’s body adjacent to the joint. Thus, the disclosure of
the application as originally filed would reasonably convey to
the artisan that the appellants’ had possession at that time of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007