Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
1999) (“In other words, if granting patent protection on the disputed claim
would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject
matter not in the prior art.”) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 13-16, and 26
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 13-16, and 26 as
being anticipated by Webber. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to
this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for
this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants note that all the claims require the backprojected data to be
processed using a non-linear operator. Appellants state that Webber
discloses using a non-linear operator but never in combination with a
backprojection operation. Appellants contend that Webber discloses using
either backprojection (linear tomosynthesis) or minimization (non-linear
tornosynthesis), but not both (Br. 9).
Appellants further argue there is no teaching or suggestion that the
backprojected data (of Webber) are being further processed via a non-linear
operator as claimed in the present application (Br. 10). Appellants contend
Webber teaches that one skilled in the art may not need a backprojection
technique at all and may just rely on the non-linear combination of the
projection images to generate a tomosynthesis image for diagnosis (id.).
Specifically, Appellants note that Webber states at column 28:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013