Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
[0003] One known method of reconstructing a three-
dimensional dataset representative of the imaged object is
known in the art as simple backprojection, or shift-and-add.
Simple backprojection backprojects each view across the
imaged volume, and averages the backprojected views. A
"slice" of the reconstructed dataset includes the average of the
backprojected images for some considered height above the
detector. Each slice is representative of the structures of
the imaged object at the considered height, and the collection of
these slices for different heights, constitutes a three-imensional
dataset representative of the imaged object.
(Specification, ¶0003).
While the Specification clearly discloses that “[s]imple backprojection
backprojects each view across the imaged volume, and averages the
backprojected views,” we note that “simple backprojection” is not claimed
(Specification, ¶0003). In contrast, each independent claim before us
broadly recites “processing the backprojected data using a non-linear
operator . . . .” (independent claims 1, 13, 14, 26, 27, and 39). Moreover, in
the Reply Brief, Appellants have stated that the term “backprojection” is
clearly understood in the art and, further, that “‘backprojection’ as used in
Webber is the same as ‘backprojection’ as used in the present application.”
(See Reply Br. 2, ¶2).
In particular, we note that the paragraph describing (simple)
“backprojection” on page 1 of Appellants’ Specification is found under the
heading “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” (Specification 1,
¶0003). Thus, we find Appellants have given no special definition to the
claim term “backprojection” that differs from the meaning it would
otherwise possess. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013