Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
[t]his approach is very efficient: it is simpler to implement than
conventional tomosynthetic back-projection methods; and it
produces sharp-appearing images that do not require additional
computationally intensive inverse filtering or interative
deconvolution schemes.
(Webber, col. 28, ll. 20-24).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner, as finder of fact, contends
that Webber discloses processing backprojected data using a non-linear
operator in Fig. 24B (Answer 11-12). The Examiner attempts to clarify the
meaning of “backprojection” by pointing to the use of the term in an
extrinsic reference (See Kirchner, col. 9, ll. 9-49, Fig. 5b). The Examiner
finds the extrinsic Kirchner reference discloses that backprojected data at
four views are superimposed to form a final dataset as shown at the bottom
of Fig. 5c (Answer 12; see Kirchner, Fig. 5c). From this extrinsic use of the
term, the Examiner concludes that “[e]vidently, the data are backprojected
first and [then an] operation such as superposition is performed.” (id.).
Regarding the Webber reference relied on in the rejection, the Examiner
finds Webber discloses at column 23, lines 25-31 that “[a]t step 904, the
projected images are shifted laterally, in the plane of projection, by amounts
required to produce a desired tomosynthetic slice where all the images are
then superimposed . . . . ” The Examiner finds this occurs (in Webber) in a
manner identical to the method described in Appellants’ disclosure at Fig. 2
(id.).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants counter that the term “backprojection”
is clearly understood in the art. Appellants state that “‘backprojection’ as
used in Webber is the same as ‘backprojection’ as used in the present
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013