Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
Although Khutoryansky does not expressly disclose acquiring
digital x-ray images, we do not subscribe to appellant’s position
that displaying the x-ray images acquired by Khutoryansky in
digital format would have been unobvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art. As evidenced by Sata, the digital display of
such imagery was known in the art at the time of filing of the
present application. However, we agree with appellant that
Khutoryansky does not teach or suggest calculating first and
second positions for the x-ray tube and detector that are located
at opposite ends of the scan range and moving the x-ray tube and
detector to the second positions before acquiring the second x-
ray image. While the reference teaches that the system returns
to the center position after each tomographic exposure, claim 1
on appeal does not preclude such a center positioning before
moving the x-ray tube and detector to the second position.
However, Khutoryansky fails to teach or suggest moving the x-ray
tube and detector to positions corresponding to the presently
claimed second position after the center positioning. All that
can be gleaned from Khutoryansky regarding second and subsequent
x-ray exposures is that the x-ray tube and detector are returned
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007