Appeal 2007-1726
Application 09/976,621
selected claim alone (independent claim 1). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection claims 1-3, 13-16, and 26 as being anticipated by
Webber.
Claims 27-29, and 39
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-29 and 39 as
being unpatentable over Webber in view of Stanton.
Appellants argue that claims 27-29 and 39 are improperly rejected for
the same reasons that independent claims 1, 13, 14, and 26 are allegedly
improperly rejected (Br. 13). Specifically, Appellants argue that the
combination of Webber and Stanton does not teach or suggest
backprojecting data that is processed using a non-linear operator (id.).
In response, we have found supra that Webber discloses
backprojecting data that is processed using a non-linear operator.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-29 and 39 as
being unpatentable over Webber in view of Stanton for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1.
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 13-16, 26-29, and 39.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 13-16, 26-29,
and 39 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013