Appeal No. 1996-3409
Application No. 08/092,543
IV. Claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Miyagi, Long,
Seltzer and the admitted state of the prior art.
V. Claims 1 through 20 under the judicially established doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting (provisional) as unpatentable over claims 1 through 20 of co-
pending application serial no. 08/105,482.
VI. Claims 1, 2 and 10 under the judicially established doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 4 of U.S. Patent No. 4,863,873.
VII. Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 10 under the judicially established doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 4 through 8, 10, 12
through 16, 18, 19, 22 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,104,639.
We affirm rejection V under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
(provisional), and reverse rejections I through IV, VI and VII.
DISCUSSION
Enablement and Written Description
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of diagnosing disorders by
comparing the electrical signal pattern generated by multiple preselected constituents
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007