Appeal No. 2006-0981 Page 8
Application No. 10/036,618
oriented in a wide range of poses with respect to the patient's anatomy 101. These
adjustments to the x-ray source 115 and receiver 116 include rotation about a horizontal
axis parallel to the long axis of the C-arm 112 (C-arm rotation), or about a horizontal
axis perpendicular to the C-arm 112 (C-arm inclination)." Id. at ll. 26-34. Because the
use of a C-arm allows an x-ray source and an x-ray receiver to be oriented in a wide
range of poses with respect to a patient's anatomy, we find that those skilled in the art
would have been motivated to use a C-arm to perform x-ray 3D imaging. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-6, which fall therewith.
B. CLAIMS 7-10
Although the appellants allege, "The patentability of each of claims 7, 8, 9 and 10
stands or falls independently of any other claim on appeal," (Appeal Br. at 2), they argue
claims 7 and 9 as a group and claims 8 and 10 as a group. (Id. at 10.) We select
claims 7 and 8 from the respective groups as representative of the claims therein.
1. Claim Construction
Claim 7 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said C-arm has an
orbital axis, and wherein the step of moving an x-ray source and a radiation receiver on
a C-arm around said subject comprises moving said x-ray source and said radiation
receiver on said C-arm through at least approximately 190° around said orbital axis."
Claim 8 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said C-arm has an angulation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007