Appeal No. 2006-0813
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,235
Representative Claim 1 stands rejected over the combination of the teachings of
McLaughlin and Connor. The examiner has found that McLaughlin teaches all of the
limitations of Claim 1 except for a removable data entry means wherein the data entry
means is removable from the nursing center and contains a transmitter for transmitting
entered data to a transmitter/receiver. Final Office action mailed June 29, 2004, p. 3
(“McLaughlin fails to teach that the data entry means is removable from the center,
containing a transmitter which communicates with a receiver in the [medicine cart]
housing.”). Appellant’s brief agrees, or at least does not assert any other differences
between McLaughlin and appellant’s Claim 1. Appeal Brief, p. 7 (“The Examiner has
recognized that McLaughlin et al. fails to teach a data entry device that is removable from
the nursing center. The Examiner also has recognized that the medication dispenser
station does not have a component that contains a transmitter which communicates with a
receiver in the nursing center.”).
The examiner relies on Connor as evidence suggesting the use of a removable
keyboard having a transmitter. Connor describes a laptop computer system having a
display and a detachable keyboard which allows a user to enter data at a location remote
from the rest of the computer. Connor, col. 2, ll. 53-57. The removable keyboard includes
a transmitter for sending the information to a receiver. Connor, col. 10, ll. 53-59. Connor
says the transmission may be wireless including infrared and other electromagnetic
radiation “such as microwave, optical or other wireless data linkage . . .” Connor, col. 8, ll.
20-31. Connor also teaches a mechanical link between the display and the keyboard of a
conventional laptop is not convenient for the user. “[S]ince the display panel and the
keyboard contained within the central section [of a conventional laptop] are mechanically
connected, the distance between the keyboard and the display may not be varied to
accommodate individual user preference.” Connor, col. 2, ll. 31-35 (bracketed text added).
Analogous Art
Appellant argues that McLaughlin and Connor are non-analogous art and therefore
the teachings of the references can not be combined. Appeal Brief, pp. 8-9. More
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007