Appeal No. 96-0899
Application 07/863,216
A rejection based on the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
112 was withdrawn by the examiner and forms no part of this
appeal.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Initially, we note that, in accordance with appellants'
grouping of claims at pages 6-7 of the brief, claims 5 and 7
stand or fall together, claims 8 and 9 stand or fall together,
claim 10 stands alone and, while claims 6 and 11 are said to
stand or fall together, in reality, one may stand and one may
fall, depending on the finding of patentability regarding the
claims from which they separately depend.
Turning first to independent claim 5, the examiner
relies on columns 3-5 and Figures 6, 8 and 9 of Auer and contends
that the wards which comprise a plurality of the bedside
terminals correspond to the claimed clusters and controllers
while the larger computers, identified as 71 and 72 in Auer,
correspond to the claimed central controller and console keyboard
and controller. The examiner recognizes that "Auer does not
specify that the cluster, patient ID, and patient module are
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007