Appeal 2007-1451
Application 09/970,146
1 PRIOR ART
2 The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
3 appealed claims are:
4
5 Maseda US 6,514,237 B1 Feb. 4, 2003
6 (Nov. 6, 2000)
7 Lieber US 4,329,993 May 18, 1982
8
9 REJECTIONS
10 Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
11 Maseda.
12 Claims 9-10, 12-14, 16, 21-23, 26, 28-29, 33, and 58-69 stand rejected under
13 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lieber and Maseda.
14
15 ISSUES
16 With regard to the novelty rejection over Maseda, the Examiner finds that
17 Maseda shows a device body that has conductive platinum metal discussed in col.
18 5, lines 1-19. The Examiner contends that this constitutes at least one electrode
19 with the electroactive polymer representing the rheometric material electrically
20 coupled to the electrode. The Examiner contends that the platinum is capable of
21 transmitting and receiving electrical signals to and from tissue due to its
22 conductive and biocompatible nature. (Answer 3). Thus, the Examiner is arguing
23 that the device body itself acts as an electrode that has the capacity to transmit and
24 receive electrical signals to and from tissue.
25
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013