Appeal No. 1999-2052
Application No. 08/572,202
Appellant has merely made conclusory statements regarding the
absence of teaching of the limitations of claim 55, see brief at
page 34, where Appellant merely states, “as far as Appellant can
determine, there is no actual temperature measurement or sensing at
all in Kenny. Accordingly, a combination of the Smith, Kikinis
and Kenny references fail (sic) to teach or suggest this further
limitation ‘wherein said temperature is sensed on a periodic basis’
in combination with the requirements of claim 1.” However, we
point out that Kenny does teach at column 1, lines 51-55 that the
temperature is indeed measured by a conventional temperature
monitor such as a thermostat or a diode, and further Kenny at
column 1 lines 65 - column 2 line 2, states that the temperature is
measured as a function of time which would imply to an artisan that
the temperature is measured on a periodic basis.
With respect to item 6 (claims 63, 64 and 66, rehearing
request at page 17), we are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments
that the temperature sensing being user modifiable as recited in
each claims 63, 64 and 66 is not taught by the combination of Smith
and Kikinis. Therefore, we modify our decision in that rejection
of claims 63, 64 and 66 over Smith and Kikinis is now reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007