Appeal No. 97-4293
Application No. 08/138,396
signal to cause the monitor to initiate a read event. It is
the examiner’s position that Bourland discloses all of the
structure recited in these two claims except for the switch
means, which is taught by Fraser, and that it would have been
obvious to replace the computer-initiated system of Bourland
with the remote switch of Fraser (Answer, page 4). We find
ourselves in agreement with the appellants that this rejection
is not sustainable.
The language of the two claims in reciting the switch
means is identical:
[A]t least one switch means adapted to be positioned
remotely of said processing means and in proximity
to said body part, said switch means for producing a
switch active signal in response to one of a
plurality of events initiated by force caused by
said body part acting on said switch means and
indicative of specific pressure states on said body
part (emphasis added).
The switch means disclosed in Fraser is activated by the
operator of the joint laxity measuring device that is
operating upon the joint of the patient. The examiner’s
opinion is that “the applicant’s [sic] intended use of the
patient initiating the switch means rather than the operator
does not serve to structurally differentiate the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007