Ex parte SPELMAN et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-2245                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/402,872                                                  


          Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 2                      
          (February 1994) pp. 192-195.                                                
          Macri, M. A. et al. (Macri), Measurement of gastrointestinal                
          transit time by means of biomagnetic instrumentation:                       
          preliminary results, Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas., Vol. 12,                   
          Suppl. A, (1991) pp. 111-115.                                               
               Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                
          103 as being unpatentable over Mishin, Weitschies, or Macri in              
          view of Leibing.                                                            
               Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under                
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mishin, Weitschies,              
          or Macri in view of Leibing, and further in view of Golden.                 
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted                    
          rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper                 
          No. 7, mailed February 6, 1996) and examiner's answer (Paper                
          No. 13, mailed September 5, 1996) for the examiner's complete               
          reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'                  
          brief (Paper No. 12, filed June 20, 1996), supplemental                     
          appendix (Paper No. 14, filed October 22, 1996), and reply                  
          brief (Paper No. 16, filed November 4, 1996) for appellants'                
          arguments thereagainst.  Only those arguments actually made by              
          appellants have been considered in this decision.                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007