Appeal No. 96-0899
Application 07/863,216
generate an indicator control packet that is sent to a particular
keyboard and visual indicator cluster controller.
Thus, with regard to claim 8, and claim 9 which depends
therefrom, the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case
of obviousness and, accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Finally, we turn to independent claim 10. This claim
is similar to independent claim 5 but requires that each of the
plurality of clusters of patient tracking modules comprise "a
rectilinear array" of modules. While Auer clearly does not show
such a "rectilinear array," the examiner contends [answer, page
7] that the artisan would have recognized "that the arrangement
of terminals would obviously be in a rectilinear array." We
disagree.
Such a rectilinear array is clearly not shown or
suggested by Auer since each bedside terminal in Auer is in a
separate room and while we interpreted the term "cluster," with
regard to claim 5, as broadly recited, to include a ward
comprising a plurality of these bedside terminals, claim 10 is
more specific in requiring each cluster to comprise a rectilinear
array of patient tracking modules. Since there is nothing in
Auer to suggest placing the bedside terminals in clusters
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007