Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
Cf. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the
meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's
lexicography governs.”).
After carefully examining the evidence before us, we find that
Webber discloses two tomosynthesis techniques (as shown in Figs. 24A and
24B) that differ only in the type of operator (linear or non-linear) applied to
the two distinct data images of radiopaque objects 1140 and 1142. Fig. 24A
of Webber is clearly labeled as “Linear Tomosynthesis (Backprojection)”
and Fig. 24B is clearly labeled as “Nonlinear Tomosynthesis
(Minimization).” We note that minimization is a type of non-linear operator,
as expressly disclosed by Webber at column 22, lines 37-40, and also
consistent with Appellants’ Specification at pages 6-7, paragraph 0018.
Appellants assert that Fig. 24B of Webber does not disclose
“backprojection” even though the only difference we find between Figs. 24A
and 24B is the type of operator applied to the two distinct data images.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments impute that “backprojection” depends upon the
type of operator applied. After carefully reviewing the record before us, we
find this interpretation inconsistent with “backprojection” as disclosed in
Appellants’ own Specification.
In particular, we find Fig. 2 of Appellants’ Specification expressly
discloses the discrete ordered steps of: “Backprojecting the projection data
across an imaged volume,” (step 63), followed by, “Processing the
backprojected data using a non-linear operator to generate a plurality of
medical images representative of the imaged object” (step 66). Thus, it is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013