Appeal 2007-1926
Application 10/062,234
from various modalities, including x-ray (“CT”) and ultrasound (Liou, col.
2, ll. 51-56). In sum, the evidence of record establishes that a person of
ordinary skill in the art was familiar with combining three-dimensional data
from different imaging media and had the technical knowledge to do so.
The skilled worker would also have had reason to combine such data for the
purpose of “enhanced medical diagnosis” (Nields, col. 3, l. 31) associated
with the higher informational content of a 3D multi-modality (i.e., x-ray and
ultrasound) image.
However, neither Nields nor Getzinger teach a method of combining
three-dimensional data acquired from an ultrasound probe and movable x-
ray source “to generate a three-dimensional image of the object” as required
by claim 1. But ultrasound three-dimensional images were known in the
prior art (Getzinger, col. 9, ll. 51-53). Three-dimensional x-ray images
using a movable x-ray source were also known prior to the application’s
filing date (Niklason, Abstract; col. 2, ll. 50-58). Putting different images
together collected from different imaging modalities was also known (e.g.,
Nields and Getzinger), including to produce three-dimensional images
(Liou, col. 2, ll. 51-56). In sum, the prior art suggests the claimed method of
combining known imaging modalities – ultrasound and x-ray – by known
methods to produce a composite three-dimensional image. A claim which
unites elements with no change in their respective functions to yield a
predictable result is not patentable in the absence of secondary
considerations.
For over a half century, the [Supreme] Court has held that a
“patent for a combination which only unites old elements with
no change in their respective functions ...obviously withdraws
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013