Appeal No. 2007-0204
Application 10/938,966
encoding gradients S1, S2, or S5 shown in Fig. 3 and, so, "it is clear that there
are remaining slice and rewinder gradients still present in 2D imaging" (Brief
at 5). We are not experts in this art, but it appears that while S1, S2, or S5 are
"slice gradients," they are not properly termed "slice encoding and rewinding
gradients," as argued. Therefore, disabling S3 and S4 is not "reducing" the
"slice encoding and rewinding gradients" from five to three; it is only
reducing the number of slice gradients. If S1, S2, and S5 are "slice encoding
and rewinding gradients," then the number of "slice encoding and rewinding
gradients" is reduced, but this does not appear to be the case.
Appellant argues that original claim 1 called for "applying a pulse
sequence that is applicable as a 3D pulse sequence with slice encoding and
rewinder gradients disabled in one dimension . . .," and that specifying that
the slice encoding and rewinder gradients are disabled in one dimension
means that they are not disabled in all dimensions (Brief at 5). This implies
that there are "slice encoding and rewinding gradients" in other directions.
We are not experts in this art, but 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.
Appellant argues that there are six slice encoding gradients (S1-S6)
shown in Fig. 2, and four slice encoding gradients (S1, S2, and S5 together
with the next S1) shown in Fig. 3, so "[i]t is perfectly clear that slice encoding
gradients have been reduced" (Brief at 6). It may be that the number of slice
gradients have been reduced, but it has not been shown that the number of
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013