Appeal No. 2005-2414 4
Application No. 10/241,763
The anticipation rejection of claims 2 through 5, 10, 12 through 17 and 21 is
sustained because appellants have chosen to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1
(brief, page 4).
The anticipation rejection of claims 11 and 22 is sustained because Gilhuijs takes a
quantitative measure of at least one of tumor shape or tumor surface morphology as
indicated supra.
The anticipation rejection of claims 23 and 25 is sustained because lesion
characteristics is another biomarker “other than tumor surface area and tumor 3D
volume2.”
The anticipation rejection of claims 24 and 26 is sustained because, as indicated
supra, Gilhuijs discloses several of the listed biomarkers.
The obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 18 is sustained because we agree with
the examiner’s finding (answer, page 10) that the skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to provide motion tracking and estimation in Gilhuijs based on the teaching in
Chaturvedi that motion tracking and estimation would permit the detection and
compensation “for out of plane displacement, rotational motion and shear” (column 3, lines
33 through 37).
2 Gilhuijs discloses tumor 3D volume as a biomarker (column 8, lines 39 through 44; column 9,
lines 48 through 53).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007