Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 13-16, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Webber.
Claims 27-29 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Webber in view of Stanton.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
ISSUES
We decide the following issues we have determined are dispositive in
this appeal:
Whether Webber discloses “processing the backprojected data using a
non-linear operator,” as recited in each independent claim. More
particularly, we broadly but reasonably construe the claim term
“backprojected” in a manner consistent with the Specification and decide
whether the term as used in each independent claim “reads on” the Webber
reference relied on by the Examiner.
STATEMENT OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Anticipation of
a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art
reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013