Appeal No. 98-2123
Application No. 08/326,669
there was a recognition that it could be used to perform the
claimed function. See In re Schreiber, supra, and In re
Spada, supra.
In view of the above, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12-15, 18-22, 27, 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gee.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 4, 10, 11, 17, 29,
30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gee. With respect to claim 4, the examiner is of the opinion
that the medication tablet 38 and sugar bag 26 of Gee can be
considered to be a test strip. In our view, however, the
examiner is attempting to unduly expand the meaning of "test
strip." Consistent with the appellants' specification, we do
not believe that one of ordinary skill in this art would
construe either medication tablets or a sugar bag to
correspond to the claimed test strip. With respect to claims
10, 11, 29 and 30, the examiner apparently is of the opinion
that transparent jacket or envelope 10 can be considered to be
a "window therein" as set forth in claim 10 and 29. However,
the transparent jacket or envelope 10 forms the entire outer
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007