Appeal No. 2005-2414 5
Application No. 10/241,763
The obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 19 is sustained because we agree with
the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 10 and 11) that it would have been obvious to the
skilled artisan to add modeling as taught by Chaturvedi to the teachings of Gilhuijs as an
aid to the motion tracking and estimation.
The obviousness rejection of claim 8 is sustained because we agree with the
examiner’s finding (answer, page 11) that the biomarker in Gilhuijs is tracked over time
based on the taking of multiple images over time.
The obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 20 is sustained because we agree with
the examiner’s finding (answer, page 12) that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan “to incorporate the high resolution imaging (less than 1mm) of Front et al. to that of
Gilhuijs et al. in order to obtain high resolution images which will give a more accurate
result when trying to determine tumor characteristics (such as size, volume, shape, etc.)
and tumor location.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5, 10 through 17 and 21
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 6 through 9 and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007