Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
must have been retrieved previously by order of an operator. The
examiner responds (Answer, page 3) that in column 25, lines 16-
36, "Taguchi discloses that images are input into a system (PACS)
and stored in a database. The image is then interpreted and
judged. The image in [sic] interpreted before an order and
sending it to the doctor."
We agree with appellant's interpretation of the cited
portions of Taguchi. As pointed out by appellant, the actions in
Taguchi occur after the image has been retrieved. Further,
regarding the examiner's statements in the answer, Taguchi's
image has already been retrieved to perform the analysis and is
analyzed to detect abnormalities, not judged as to whether it
needs to be retrieved, as claimed. As Taguchi fails to disclose
the claimed pre-fetching judging means, Taguchi does not
anticipate claim 1. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or its dependents, claims 2 through 59, 77,
and 78. In addition, as claim 60 includes the same limitation
found lacking from Taguchi for claim 1, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 60 or its dependents, claims 61 and 62.
Independent claim 68 recites, in pertinent part, a dual-type
character search. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 12) points
to Figures 61 and 62A, columns 13, 14, 34, 37, 38, and part of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007