Appeal No. 2006-3040 Page 2
Application No. 10/261,196
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of segmenting an anatomical image comprising:
presegmenting the image at a reduced image resolution to identify at least one
region from an image background, thereby forming a presegmented image;
transferring the presegmented image to an image having a first resolution higher
than said reduced image resolution; and
segmenting further the identified region in the image having the first resolution
into finer anatomical structures.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Schneider 5,531,227 July 02, 1996
Gur et al. (Gur) 5,627,907 May 06, 1997
Bick et al. (Bick) 6,185,320 Feb. 06, 2001
Vining 6,272,366 Aug. 07, 2001
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 3-18, 23-28, 35, and 40-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bick and Schneider.
2. Claims 19-22, 34, 36-39, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bick and Schneider in view of Vining.
3. Claims 29-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the teachings of Bick and Schneider in view of Gur.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference
to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007