Appeal No. 2006-0981 Page 7
Application No. 10/036,618
"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F3d 1305,
1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A suggestion to combine teachings
from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references
themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of
the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355,
51 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47
USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Here, in White "a computerized tomographic imaging device 13 (FIG. 6) utilizing
x-ray radiation is employed . . . to obtain distinguishable representations of different
substances within the anatomy 11." Col. 5, ll. 51-56. The appellants admit that "C-arm
x-ray systems have been used in, and are known to be suitable for use in, an operating
room environment in order to generate a 3D dataset to produce an image for monitoring
the progress of a medical interventional procedure." (Appeal Br. at 8.) For its part,
Kienzle discloses a "standard piece of operating room equipment ha[ving] an x-ray
source 115 and an x-ray receiver 116 attached to either end of a 'C' shaped beam 113."
Col. 8, ll. 22-24. The latter reference explains that "[a]djustable links on the C-arm allow
the 'C' shaped beam 113 with the x-ray source 115 and x-ray receiver 116 to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007