Appeal No. 2001-1469
Application No. 09/001,284
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on Orphanoudakis. Finally, appellant argues
that even if it were proper to combine the teachings of Orphanoudakis and Huang, the
combination still fails to teach automatically selecting a storage device in which to store
the medical image by analyzing patient diagnostic information as claimed [brief, pages
9-15].
The examiner responds that the Huang reference was cited only to show an
inherent characteristic of Orphanoudakis. The examiner notes that Orphanoudakis
specifically refers to Huang and that Huang teaches storing files onto the fastest storage
device. The examiner also argues that since Orphanoudakis teaches image retrieval
rates based on the seriousness of the patient’s illness, Orphanoudakis must have
evaluated diagnostic information before selecting a storage device [answer, pages 7-8].
Appellant responds that the use of Huang to disclose an inherent property of
Orphanoudakis is improper. Appellant notes that there are several interpretations of
Huang and that the examiner’s interpretation does not necessarily follow. Appellant
also asserts that the selection of a storage device in Huang is not made by analyzing
patient diagnostic information associated with the image as claimed [reply brief].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-18 because all
the features of independent claims 1, 6 and 7 are not fully met by the disclosure of
Orphanoudakis for reasons argued by appellant. At the outset, we agree with appellant
that the mere citation of a reference in a published article does not allow the cited
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007