Appeal No. 2002-0565
Application No. 08/979,279
Appellants argue throughout the briefs that Fujita neither
teaches nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art a manual controller to manipulate images of a patient on a
display during a fluoroscopy scan of a patient.
We agree with appellants’ argument. Nothing in the record
supports the examiner’s conclusion (answer, page 7) that “the
structure attributable to the independent claims is taught by
Fujita.” According to In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the examiner’s conclusory
statements in the rejection must be supported by evidence of
record. To date, the examiner has not provided any evidence to
support the conclusion reached in the rejection that the computed
tomography disclosed by Fujita is the same as the computed
tomography with a fluoroscopy scan disclosed and claimed by
appellants. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 21 is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007