Appeal No. 2006-0981 Page 10
Application No. 10/036,618
necessary range of angular movements so as to allow the acquisition of data for the
production of a 3D image," (Appeal Br. at 9), and the reference discloses that its "C-arm
collar 52 support[s] the arcuate C-arm 56 curving through an approximately 180 degree
arc," col. 5, ll. 59-60, we further find that its x-ray source and receiver can be moved
approximately 190° around the orbital axis and angulation axis.
Ergun also discloses numerous advantages to its C-arm. For example, the arm
"provide[s] increased articulation in the C-arm support structure," col. 2, l. 23-24; it
"minimize[s] unintended movement of the C-arm," id. at ll. 36-37; it "permit[s] a
reduction of size and weight of the C-arm assembly," id. at ll. 45-46; and it "provide[s]
an additional degree of freedom of positioning of the C-arm. . . ." Id. at ll. 54-55. Other
advantages are disclosed in columns 1 and 2 of the reference. We find that these
advantages would have motivated those skilled in the art to use such a C-arm to
perform 3D imaging. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 7 and 8 and of
claims 9 and 10, which respectively fall therewith.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-10 under § 103(a) is affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a). Accordingly,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007