Ex Parte 4944298 et al - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-3787                                                                            
               Reexamination 90/006,642                                                                    
               Patent 4,944,298                                                                            
           1                          Reference Relied on by the Examiner                                  
           2   Nappholz  US 4,429,687   Feb. 7, 1984                                                       
           3   Sholder US 4,856,523   Aug. 15, 1989                                                        
           4   Berkovits US 4,932,406   Jun. 12, 1990                                                      
           5   Neal E. Fearnot, “A Review of Pacemakers That Physiologically Increase                      
           6   Rate:  The DDD and Rate-Responsive Pacemakers,” Progress in                                 
           7   Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 145-164  (1986).                                  
           8                                                                                               
           9                            The Rejections on Appeal                                           
          10                                                                                               
          11          The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.  112, first                  
          12   paragraph, as without written description in the specification.                             
          13          The Examiner rejected claims 6, 14, and 17, under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                 
          14   unpatentable over Fearnot, and Berkovits or Sholder.                                        
          15          The Examiner rejected claims 6, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                  
          16   unpatentable over Fearnot.                                                                  
          17          The Examiner rejected claims 6, 14, 17, 21/6, 22/6, 23/6, 24-26,                     
          18   27/17, and 28/17 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as unpatentable over Nappholz, and                   
          19   Berkovits or Sholder.                                                                       
          20   B. Issue                                                                                    
          21          Has the Applicant shown error in the rejection of claims 6, 14, 17,                  
          22   21/6, 22/6, 23/6, 24, 25, 26, 27/17, and 28/17?                                             
          23   C. Summary of the Decision                                                                  
          24          No error has been shown in the rejection of claims 6, 14, 17, 21/6,                  
          25   22/6, 23/6, 24, 25, 26, 27/17, and 28/17.                                                   

                                                                                                          
               2   The “/” symbol designates the particular claim dependency in a multiple                 
               dependent claim.                                                                            
                                                    2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013