Appeal No. 2007-0204
Application 10/938,966
gradients' is reduced, but this does not appear to be the case" (Decision 6) and
"it is not clear that S1, S2, or S5 are 'slice encoding and rewinding gradients' in
other directions and we will not make this assumption absent a specific
statement by Appellant" (Decision 6) and "[b]ased on our reading of the
specification, S3 and S4 are the only 'slice encoding and rewinding gradients'"
(Decision 7). Appellant does not contest these statements and, therefore, does
not challenge our finding that S3 and S4 correspond to the "slice encoding and
rewinder gradients" that are reduced in a 2D mode in claim 51.
1.
Appellant first argues that we erroneously construed the term
"disabled" to mean "completely turned off" and that it is unclear how we
came to that conclusion (Req. Reh'g 2). It is argued that "disabled" is a
relative term, which can mean "weaken" without turning off and "[a]ny
interpretation that limits 'disabling' to only being completely turned off is
simply an incorrect one" (Req. Reh'g 2). It is argued that "disabled
completely" occurs only once and all other instances of "disable" do not
include the modifier "completely." "Appellant acknowledges that the slice
encoding and rewinder gradients are completely turned off in the particular
embodiment shown in Fig. 3, but this does not dictate the conclusion that all
'disabled' slice encoding and rewinder gradients are always completely turned
off." (Req. Reh'g 3.)
The issue is support for the term "reduced" meaning "diminished, but
not completely turned off," not for the term "disabled." We find no argument
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013