Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
plurality of diagnostic system modalities" [answer, page 13].
The admitted prior art in combination with Wood et al. and Reeder
and Official Notice fails to cure the deficiencies of Wood et al.
and Reeder and Official Notice noted above with respect to claim
69. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as set forth above.
VII. Whether the Rejection of Claims 74-76 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 74-76.
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 69, Appellants also argue
at page 21-22 of the brief that the references do not disclose or
suggest use of "an exemplary image obtainable via the protocol."
We find this argument persuasive for the reason noted above with
respect to claim 59.
Therefore, the Examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness and we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007