Ex parte HAUSER - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-1074                                                           
          Application 08/170,224                                                       


          1.  A pressure measurement device for measuring the pressure                 
          within an infusion tube (12) as a medicamentous substance flows              
          through the infusion tube by operation of an infusion pump that is           
          connected to the infusion tube, said device comprising;                      

          a pressure sensor (20),                                                      
          a housing (14) comprising at least one chamber (16) with one                 
          side of said chamber being defined by a deformable membrane (18)             
          contacting a wall of the infusion tube, and said chamber                     
          containing said sensor at a location within said chamber that is             
          spaced from said membrane, and                                               
          a fluid (24) within said chamber between said membrane (18)                  
          and said sensor (20), said fluid being nonliquid, said fluid                 
          having a Poisson ratio of at least 0.49, and said fluid having an            
          instantaneous modulus of elasticity of under 10 Mpa, so that said            
          sensor has a linear pressure response curve.                                 
          The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                    
          obviousness are:                                                             
          Koen et al. (Koen)                4,993,265           Feb 19, 1991           
          Stuebe et al. (Stuebe)            5,117,827           Jun 02, 1992           
          Kalinoski et al. (Kalinoski)      5,209,125           May 11, 1993           

          Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                     
          unpatentable over Koen in view of Kalinoski and Stuebe.                      
          The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant                   
          with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in            
          the final rejection (Paper No. 9), the examiner's answer (Paper              
          No. 15) and the examiner’s second answer (Paper No. 17) and the              
          appellant's brief (Paper No. 14) and reply brief (Paper No. 16).             
                                             2                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007