Ex parte SINHA - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-1603                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/428,940                                                  


               The appellant's invention relates to a method of                       
          measuring changes in intracranial pressure (ICP) of a subject               
          which includes the step of measuring the phase difference                   
          between a detected resonant vibration and the applied                       
          ultrasonic excitation.  An understanding of the invention can               
          be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears               
          in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                   

                                    The Prior Art                                     
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Kageyama et al. (Kageyama)    4,971,061                Nov. 20,             
          1990                                                                        
          Mick                               5,074,310                Dec.            
          24, 1991                                                                    
          Kaufman et al. (Kaufman)           5,309,898                May             
          10, 1994                                                                    
          (filed Oct. 13,                                                             
          1993)                                                                       
          “Noninvasive Pressure Measurement,” by D. Devine, III et al.,               
          IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin (Vol. 20, No. 8,                          
          January/1978)                                                               
          (Devine).                                                                   

                                   The Rejections                                     
               Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as              
          being unpatentable over Mick in view of Kageyama and Devine.                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007