Appeal 2006-2514
Application 10/233,562
necrotic core biomarker (column 6, lines 19
through 36).
Gilhuijs uses statistical segmentation in the analysis of a breast tumor (Col.
4, ll. 31 through 34).
Although Gilhuijs describes a breast tumor, Kennedy takes a three-
dimensional image of the brain to locate a biomarker (e.g., a brain lesion or
tumor, brain white matter and the shape of the tumor or lesion) (Col. 3, l. 25
through Col. 4, l. 9). Kennedy derives at least one quantitative measurement
(i.e., volumetric measurements of tumor size) of the at least one biomarker
(Col. 2, ll. 3 through 52), and stores the results of the measurement along
with an identification of the biomarker (Col. 4, l. 63 through Col. 5, l. 18 and
Col. 9, ll. 15 through 35). Kennedy uses motion tracking and estimation
during the measurement of tumor expansion (Col. 4, ll. 3 through 9). A
histogram is used by Kennedy to model or display three-dimensional images
taken over time of a region of interest (Col. 2, l. 56 through Col. 3, l. 6; Col.
5, l. 51 through Col. 6, l. 4).
Gilhuijs and Kennedy are applied together in the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 18 and 20 to 24. Gilhuijs, Kennedy and
Front are applied together in the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 19.
As indicated supra, Appellants contend that the skilled artisan would
not have found it obvious to combine the teachings of the references because
they scan two different parts of the human body.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013