Appeal No. 2007-0204
Application 10/938,966
DISCUSSION
The issue is whether, in the limitation "entering a real-time monitoring
mode using a modifiable pulse sequence with reduced slice encoding and
rewinder gradients in a 2D mode" in claim 51, there is written description
support for "reduced" slice encoding and rewinder gradients meaning that the
gradients may be "diminished, but not eliminated."
The Specification states that "S3 and S4 are the slice-encoding and
rewinder gradients, respectively" (Specification 8), that a 3D imaging pulse
sequence can be configured as a 2D pulse sequence by "turning off, or
disabling, both S3 and S4 gradients as is shown in Figure 3" (Specification 8),
and that "the slice encoding gradient is disabled completely in the 2D mode"
(Specification 8). However, we found no description of the slice encoding
and rewinder gradients being "reduced" in the sense of "diminished, but not
eliminated," in the 2D mode and affirmed the written description rejection.
Appellant argues that we erred: (1) in interpreting the term "disabled"
to be synonymous with "turned off"; (2) in interpreting the term "increase";
and (3) in finding that the Specification does not support "reduced" meaning
"not disabled completely."
Before addressing the arguments, we note that our opinion addressed
several arguments by Appellant relying on the gradients S1, S2, and S5 to meet
the limitation of "reduced slice encoding and rewinder gradients"
(Decision 5-7). We noted that if "S1, S2, and S5 are 'slice encoding and
rewinding gradients,' then the number of 'slice encoding and rewinding
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013