Appeal 2006-1971
Application 10/144,224
1 of effecting pressure changes and measuring pressure changes. Appellants
2 do not argue the portion of Misner relied upon by the Examiner but rather
3 argue (Br. 25-28) that Misner does not make up for the deficiencies of the
4 rest of the applied prior art because Misner does not disclose or suggest the
5 claimed depth penetration, and presents the arguments made for claim 1.
6 As we found, supra, Misner describes applying mechanical pressure to
7 substantially enhance the magnitude of the normal; cardiac pulse. From this
8 suggestion of Misner, and the failure of Appellants to address the portions
9 of Misner relied upon by the Examiner, we hold that the suggestions of the
10 applied prior art would have suggested the language of claim 20, and are not
11 convinced of any error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 20.
12 The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
13 We turn next to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
14 being unpatentable over Steuer in view of Soller, Arakaki, Aronow, and
15 Simons. The Examiner notes that Steuer describes measuring pulse and
16 hematocrit, and relies upon Simons for a suggestion of measuring the
17 patient's blood pressure in addition to hematocrit and cardiac pulse rate. As
18 we found, supra, Simon's discloses that heart rate and blood pressure, in
19 addition to Electrocardiogram results, suggest the health of a patient.
20 Appellants fail to address the portions of Simons relied upon by the
21 Examiner but rather argue that Simons does not disclose or suggest the
22 claimed depth penetration, and repeat the arguments presented for claim 1.
23 From the disclosure of Simons, and the failure of Appellants to address the
24 portions of Simons relied upon by the Examiner, we hold that the
25 suggestions of the applied prior art would have suggested the language of
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013