Appeal No. 2004-0823
Application No. 09/555,391
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 19-24, 38, 45, 49, 50 and 62 based on
the combination of Ohhashi and Novik. With respect to independent claims 1, 19 and 23, the
examiner essentially finds that Ohhashi teaches the claimed invention except that Ohhashi does
not necessarily teach that the reconstructed image is a decompressed image. The examiner notes
that decompressing medical images was well known as taught by Novik. The examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to decompress the medical images of Ohhashi as
taught by Novik. The examiner also asserts that the windowing parameters of Ohhashi are
combinable with the imaging and viewing parameters of Novik [final rejection, pages 5, 6-7 and
8-9, incorporated into answer at page 5].
Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness because there is no suggestion, reason, utility or possibility to combine Ohhashi and
Novik and still achieve the last claim limitation. Appellants argue that it is not clear how the
examiner proposes to combine the teachings of Ohhashi and Novik, but they argue that each
possibility fails to result in the claimed invention. Appellants assert that the images of Ohhashi
have no decompression associated with them so that there is no basis for applying the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007