Appeal 2007-1926
Application 10/062,234
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are drawn to an apparatus and method for generating an
image of an object. Three-dimensional information about the object is
acquired from a movable radiation source and an ultrasound probe is
combined to generate a three-dimensional image of the object.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20, all the pending claims, stand rejected over
prior art (Br. 2). The Examiner relies on the following evidence of
unpatentability:
Getzinger U.S. Pat. 5,640,956 Jun. 24, 1997
Liou U.S. Pat. 5,839,440 Nov. 24, 1998
Niklason U.S. Pat. 5,872,828 Feb. 16, 1999
Nields U.S. Pat. 6,459,925 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Nields in view of Niklason, Getzinger, and Liou (Answer 2).
Claim 10 was separately argued and stands or falls apart from claims 1-9 and
12-20 (Br. 111). 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We select claim 1 as
representative of claims 2-9 and 12-20. Claims 1 and 10 read as follows:
1. A method for generating an image of an object of interest,
said method comprising:
acquiring a first three-dimensional dataset of the object at
a first position using a radiation source and a detector, the
radiation source being movable with respect to the detector to a
plurality of positions including the first position;
1 According to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), “[a]ny claim argued separately
should be placed under a subheading identifying the claim by number.”
Claim 10 was not properly argued because the separate arguments for its
patentability were not placed under a subheading which specifically
identified it by claim number. Nonetheless, we have considered Appellants’
separate arguments directed to claim 10.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013