Appeal No. 2004-1031
Application No. 09/448,952
the contrary notwithstanding, claim 1 on appeal is not limited to
medical images, and the selection of an appropriate medical imaging
modality. The same solution (i.e., send descriptive data along
with the image data to help the receiver select the appropriate
compression routine) was found by both the appellants and
Dieterich. Thus, Dieterich is analogous art because he addresses
the same problem and arrives at the same solution as the disclosed
and claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 3 is sustained based upon the teachings of Dieterich. In
sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as
a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ
263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150
USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966). The transmission of descriptive
header data along with image data teachings of Kohm are merely
cumulative to the teachings of Dieterich. We agree with
appellants’ argument (brief, page 8), however, that Kohm uses the
header data to adjust the tone of the image data, and not to
compress the image data.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007