Appeal No. 2004-1097
Application No. 09/924,831
is not specifically directed to dental images. The examiner,
however, essentially contends that it would have been obvious to
extend Dewaele's medical imaging method and apparatus to the
field of dentistry for the same benefits.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 10) that the examiner "did not
properly analyze the differences between the Dewaele reference
and the claimed invention." Appellants contend that the examiner
did not take into consideration the problem solved by appellants
nor "other pertinent differences." More specifically, appellants
assert (Brief, pages 11-13) that Dewaele is not concerned with
"the risk of infection to a dental patient caused by manual
operation of computer input devices of a dental imaging system
while attending to the patient" (Brief, page 11). Dewaele
instead "is concerned with speed and accuracy of entry of
identification data which is to be associated with a medical
image" (Brief, page 13). Further, appellants point out (Brief,
pages 14-18) that Dewaele uses speech recognition and voice
command processing for providing identification information to be
associated with an image rather than for selecting, retrieving
for display, and manipulating an image.
We agree with appellants that Dewaele fails to teach using
speech recognition and voice command processing for selecting and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007