Appeal 2006-1971
Application 10/144,224
1 separation distance of 2-4 mm; the description of Arakaki that a separation
2 distance of 1-3 mm is expected to have a depth of penetration of 0.5mm –
3 1.5 mm we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings and
4 suggestion of these references would have suggested the claimed penetration
5 depth of no more than approximately 2 mm and the light
6 ntroduction/collection separation distance of no more than approximately 2
7 mm. In addition, from the description of Mendelson and Mills of
8 having temperature control of the sample, and the description of Aranow of
9 providing an alarm to medical personnel in the event a monitored
10 characteristic went past a predetermined amount, we conclude that the
11 combined teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested the
12 invention of claims 1 and 3-6 as advanced by the Examiner.
13 We are not persuaded by Appellants' assertion (Br. 11) that in Steuer
14 the light travels completely through the finger because Fig. 1B of Steuer
15 discloses an embodiment having a reflective mode where the light does not
16 go completely through the finger. Nor are we persuaded by Appellants'
17 assertion (id.), that the light travels though the patient's finger and that
18 Aranow the penetration depth is greater than the 2 mm set forth in claim 1,
19 because Aranow was not cite for these features, but rather was cited to
20 suggest an alarm to notify medical personnel in the event that monitored
21 characteristic went outside of predetermined range.
22 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' assertion (id.) that Mendelson
23 and Mills do not disclose sampling depth or separation distances because
24 these references were not cited to show sampling depth or separation
25 distances, but rather were cited to show temperature control. Thus, we find
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013