Appeal 2006-1971
Application 10/144,224
1 hemoglobin (col. 4, ll. 11-22). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's
2 holding, but rather argues the Gravenstein does not teach the depth
3 penetration or the claimed separation distance and repeats the same
4 arguments presented for claim 1. Thus, we find that Appellants fail to
5 address the portions of the reference relied upon by the Examiner.
6 Accordingly, we are not convinced of any error on the part of the
7 Examiner in rejecting claims 14-16. The rejection of claims 14-16 under
8 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
9 We turn next to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
10 being unpatentable over Steuer, Soller, Arakaki, Aranow, Gravenstein and
11 Osemwota. The examiner additionally relies upon Osemwota for a
12 suggestion of using an invasive measurement to initially calibrate the
13 instruments. Appellants do not argue the portions of Osemwota relied upon
14 by the Examiner. Rather, Appellants assert (Br. 20-22) that Osemwota does
15 not teach or suggest the claimed penetration depth and separation distance,
16 and repeats the arguments made for claim 1. From our findings, supra, with
17 respect to the suggestions of Osemwota and the failure of Appellants to
18 argue the portions of the reference relied upon by the Examiner, we hold that
19 the prior art would have suggested the language of claim 12 and are not
20 persuaded of any error on the part of the Examiner. The rejection of claim 12
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
22 We turn next to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
23 being unpatentable over Steuer, Soller, Arakaki, Aronow, Mendelson, Mills,
24 and Misner. The Examiner additionally relies upon Misner for a suggestion
25
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013