Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
We likewise find Appellants’ second argument unavailing, that
“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.” (Br.
10). We note that Webber’s disclosure at column 28, lines 14-31 does not
refer directly to the figures relied on by the Examiner (See Webber, Figs.
24A and 24B). Moreover, we find Webber’s disclosure at column 28, lines
14-31, is directed to conventional tomosynthetic backprojection methods
that rely on linear operators, e.g., linear summation (See Webber, col. 27, ll.
64-66). In particular, we find Webber’s disclosure at column 28, lines 14-
31, has no specific nexus to Fig. 24B and thus does not preclude alternate
forms of backprojection, such as backprojection using a non-linear
minimization operator, as shown in Fig. 24B. To the extent Appellants are
arguing that Webber’s disclosure at column 28, lines 14-31 “teaches away”
from the claimed invention, we note our reviewing court has found
“[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange International,
Inc., v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). Therefore, we find Appellants’ “teaching away” argument
misplaced because the Examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have failed to show the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Webber.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 2-3, 13-16, and 26 in this group on the basis of the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013