Opinion ID: 667253
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a projection data memory means for storing projection data;

Text: 5 b. a linearization pointer memory means for storing a set of projection data memory pointers; 6 c. scaling means operatively connected to the linearization pointer memory means for selecting a member of the set of projection data memory pointers; 7 d. means operatively connected to the scaling means and the projection data memory means for determining, based on the selected projection data memory pointer, the projection data associated with the image matrix location; and 8 e. means operatively connected to the determining means for accumulating the projection data associated with the image matrix location. 9 The apparatus recited in the count is an improvement over the apparatus described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 4,293,912 ('912 patent), issued to Walters on October 6, 1981. The improvement rests in the addition of element b, the linearization pointer memory means for storing a set of projection data memory pointers. The linearization pointer memory means compensates for distortion in the raw data received by the CT scanner. 10 At the time here involved, Walters was a consultant to Star Technologies, Inc. (Star), and Sewall was an employee of Star. On November 15, 1985, Star filed an application (Sewall application) containing claims corresponding to the subject matter of the count and naming Sewall and Walters as joint inventors. Star is the assignee of the Sewall application. Then, on February 1, 1988, Walters filed an identical application (Walter application), which is unassigned, asserting sole inventorship of that subject matter. This interference proceeding ensued, at which time the party Sewall, et. al. was designated senior party on the basis of their earlier filing date. However, the party Walters was, on motion, later given the benefit of the filing date of the Sewall application, wherefore neither party is in fact either senior or junior since both parties have the same filing date. The issue on appeal is merely one of joint or sole inventorship. As the original second to file, however, Walters had the burden to show his asserted sole inventorship.