Appeal No. 1998-1603 Page 8
Application No. 08/428,940
the phase difference between the detected resonant vibration
and the applied excitation. Rather, Mick discloses that a
mechanical forced oscillation stimulus is transmitted through
the bone material and that the frequency response spectrum is
measured. (Col. 4, lines 44 to 54). In addition, neither
Kageyama nor Devine discloses the application of excitation of
a single frequency and the measurement of a phase difference
to determine changes in ICP.
Further, Mick discloses that the characteristics of the
measured sound signal in the measurement of ICP leads to
inaccurate results (Col. 1, lines 46 to 50; Col. 2, lines 40
to 43; Col. 2, lines 53 to 56). As such, in our view there
would have been no motivation to replace the mechanical
oscillation excitation of Mick with the sound excitation of
Kageyama.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Mick in view of Devine.
In addition, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 3. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and thus includes the
above discussed steps of applying a single frequency
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007