Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
clear, as disclosed in Appellants’ own Specification, that backprojection
occurs (i.e., in step 64), before the step of processing with an operator (i.e.,
Step 66). See also Appellants’ Specification at paragraph 16:
[0016] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a method 60 including
acquiring views 62 of an object 12, such as a breast 12, from at
least two projection angles with medical imaging system 10
(shown in FIG. 1), such as a tomosynthesis imaging system and
a CT imaging system, to generate a projection dataset of object
12. Imaging system 10 includes at least one radiation source 14
and at least one detector array 16. The views are backprojected
64 across an imaged volume by image reconstructor 36. The
backprojected data is processed 66 using a non-linear operator
68 and further processed by image reconstructor 36 to generate
a plurality of slices, representative of the imaged object, that are
stored by computer 38 in storage device 40 for viewing on
display 44 [emphasis added].
(Specification, ¶0016).
See also Appellants’ Brief at page 10:
In contrast, the claimed processing uses a backprojection
technique on the acquired projection images to generate
backprojected data. The backprojected data is further processed
via a non-linear operator to generate a three-dimensional dataset
representative of the imaged object.
(Br. 10).
Because the only difference we find between Figs. 24A and 24B of
Webber is the type of operator applied to the two distinct data images, we
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. Thus, we
find the recited language of “processing the backprojected data using a non-
linear operator” reads on Webber at Fig. 24B (See also instant claim 1).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013