Ex parte ROSENTHAL - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-2855                                                          
          Application No. 08/190,227                                                  


          (effectively filed Jul. 29,                                                 
          1988)                                                                       
                    Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Regimand.                                  




                    Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and              
          the Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief and               
          answer for the respective details thereof.                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
                    We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1                     
          through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                            
                                    ANALOGOUS ART                                     
                    Appellant argues in the Reply Brief:                              
                         First, the Answer has failed to establish                    
               that the Regimand neutron gauges for detecting the                     
               asphalt content of bituminous paving mix are in the                    
               same field as the present invention, which relates                     
               to non-invasive quantitative measurement of analytes                   
               in the blood.  There is no evidence of record that                     
               one skilled in the art of non-invasive biochemical                     
               analysis would look to the industrial neutron gauge                    
               art for solutions to problems encountered in that                      
               field.                                                                 
                    In determining whether a claim would have been                    
          obvious at the time of the invention, the Examiner must first               
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007