Appeal No. 2005-0855 6
Application No. 10/269,807
algorithm to fit Appellant’s situation. Appellant
himself admits in the specification that there is not
only one known algorithm but rather a plurality of
known positron lifetime algorithms (e.g. see paragraph
0058), Doppler broadening algorithms (paragraph 0057)
and three-dimensional imaging algorithms (e.g., see
paragraph 0060).
. . . There is no support as to how and in what
manner one selects the specific algorithm to use for
the two activation/analysis processes, to evaluate
requisite constants and to modify the selected
algorithm to Appellant’s situation [second answer, page
7];
and
There is neither an adequate description nor
enabling disclosure as to how and in what manner one
can determine when the half-life of the selected
positron emitter is less than a selected half-life
(sic), where the composition of the specimen is unknown
and it is this composition that is desired to be
determined. The same lack of support exists for the
determination of when the half-life of the selected
positron emitter is more than a selected half-life
(sic) [second answer, page 8].
A fair assessment of the appellant’s disclosure shows that
the references therein to “activating” a positron emitter through
photon bombardment of the specimen would be understood by the
artisan as synonymous with “producing” or “forming” the positron
emitter from a stable precursor. For example, the specification
states that “photons 16 from the photon source 12 produce such
neutron-deficient isotopes . . . referred to herein in the
alternative as ‘positron emitters’” (page 7, emphasis added), and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007