Appeal 2006-1971
Application 10/144,224
1 Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2 unpatentable over Steuer in view of Soller, Arakaki, Aronow, Misner, and
3 Simons.
4 Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have
5 been obvious. More specifically, Appellants contend with respect to claims
6 1 and 3-6, that claim 1 recites that the means for collecting optical signals
7 penetrates the tissue to a depth of no more than approximately 2mm, and
8 that the light induction site is separated from the light collection site by no
9 more than approximately 2mm. Appellants contend that the prior art does
10 not teach or suggest these features. Appellants additionally contend (Br. 12)
11 that because six references have been applied, that the success of the
12 invention resulting from the combination could not have been predicted in
13 the absence of Appellants’ disclosure (Br. 13). It is further contended (id.)
14 that the Examiner has used Appellants' disclosure as a road map for selecting
15 and combining prior art disclosures. The same arguments have been
16 presented for the other rejections.
17 The Examiner's contentions can be found on pages 3-13 of the
18 Answer.
19
20 We AFFIRM.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013