Appeal No. 2004-0823
Application No. 09/555,391
dependent claim 69 which relies on the same arguments just considered.
We now consider the rejection of claim 70 based on Novik and Liew. The examiner has
indicated how he finds the claimed invention to be obvious over the applied prior art [final
rejection, pages 27-28, incorporated into answer at page 6]. Appellants argue that there is no
basis for combining the references because Liew relates to a uniform distortion over the entire
image which is undesirable for a medical image. Appellants also argue that the viewing
parameter in Novik is received from a user and not stored in an image store as claimed [brief,
pages 29-30].
The examiner responds that there is no reason why Liew could not be used for medical
images. The examiner also responds that the viewing parameters in Novik are inherently stored
[answer, pages 24-25]. Appellants respond that they provided a reason why Liew cannot be used
with medical images. Appellants also respond that the examiner did not show that it was
inherent to store the viewing parameters in an image store and in association with an image
[reply brief, page 16].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 70 because we agree with
appellants that the examiner has failed to properly address appellants’ arguments with respect to
claim 70.
We now consider the rejection of claims 71-74 based on Carnahan, Mason and Mack.
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed invention to be obvious over the applied
prior art [final rejection, pages 28-29, incorporated into answer at page 6]. Appellants argue that
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007