Appeal 2006-2020 Application 10/267,152 Rosen, Crain, or Yeh, claim 8 as unpatentable over Burris in view of Rosen, Crain, or Yeh, further in view of Henderson, and claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over Burris in view of Rosen or in view of Crain or Yeh, further in view of Rosen. The Examiner provides reasons in support of the rejections in the Answer (mailed October 5, 2005). Appellants present opposing arguments in the Brief (filed May 13, 2005). ISSUE The basic issue in this case is whether it would have been obvious, in view of any of Rosen, Crain or Yeh, to provide one or more handles on the display device of Burris’ cart-supported diagnostic medical imaging ultrasound system to assist the operator in positioning the display device. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellants do not allege that Burris lacks any of the limitations recited in claim 1, with the exception of the handle located on the image display. 2. Burris discloses a medical imaging ultrasound system comprising an image generator 200 housed in a cart 710 and a display device 730 supported on the cart via swiveling arms 740, 750. The operator can horizontally position display device 730 outside the cart using arms 740, 750. Swiveling arm 750 connects to display device 730 with a 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013