Appeal No. 2001-0628
Application No. 09/118,665
claim 88 of the step of positioning a joint in a chamber of the
imaging unit by maintaining the imaging unit stationary and
moving the patient along the upright central axis of the unit.
Thus, the combined teachings of Knuttel, either Shellock or
Captain Jack, and Cook do not justify the examiner’s conclusion
that the differences between the subject matter recited in
independent claims 59, 64, 69, 75 and 88 are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 59, 64, 75 and 88, and dependent claims 60
through 63, 65 through 68, 70, 71, 77 through 80 and 89 through
91, as being unpatentable over Knuttel in view of either Shellock
or Captain Jack, and further in view of Cook.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 69 and 72 through 74 as
being unpatentable over either Shellock or Captain Jack in view
of Cook
For the reasons discussed above, the combined teachings of
Shellock or Captain Jack in view of Cook do not warrant a
conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
recited in independent claim 69. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 69, and
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007