Appeal No. 2006-2736 Page 7
Application No. 10/038,167
B. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Massingill, at *3. The question
of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e]
prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59
USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Fenster "relates to medical diagnostics and in particular to a method and
system for constructing and displaying three-dimensional images." (Col. 1, ll. 22-24.)
"Referring now to FIG. 1, a three-dimensional ultrasound imaging system in accordance
with the present invention is shown and is generally indicated by reference numeral 20.
The system 20 is capable of generating a three-dimensional ultrasound image of a
target volume of a subject under examination. . . ." (Col. 3, ll. 52-57.) "The [system's]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007