Appeal 2007-0275
Application 09/313,278
features available to members of the clinical group”). Therefore, we leave it
to the Examiner to consider whether at least claim 39 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
over Douglas in view of Nicol, or any other prior art references available to
the Examiner.
DECISION
In summary, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any
claims under appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 39-51 is reversed.
REVERSED
gw
HELLER EHRMAN LLP
1717 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-3001
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013