Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
The rejection of independent claim 10 is another matter.
The method recited in claim 10 does not include any of the moving
of the x-ray tube and detector between first and second
positions. Claim 10 simply requires the simultaneous displaying
of digital x-ray images that are acquired in a series of imaging
steps. We agree with the examiner that Khutoryanski fairly
teaches acquiring a series of images corresponding to different
angular slices of interest, as does Sata, and we find that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ conventional digital imagery for displaying the acquired
series of images. To display digital x-ray images simultaneously
is taught by Sata, even though the simultaneous display is of a
scanogram and an x-ray CT image. In our view, based on the
collective teachings of the applied references and the state of
the prior art, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to digitally display either a single x-ray image
or a plurality of x-ray images taken in sequence. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). We note that
appellant bases no arguments upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, in order to rebut the
inference of obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007