Appeal No. 1998-2472
Application No. 08/614,324
claims 12, 15, and 16. However, the limitation argued for
group two does not appear in claims 18 and 19 and the
limitation argued for group 3 does not appear in claim 22.
Accordingly, we will treat the claims according to the
following six groups: (1) claims 4, 7, 8, 17, and 20; (2)
claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 23, and 24; (3) claims 18 and 19, (4)
claim 21; (5) claim 22, and (6) claims 12, 15, and 16, with
claims 4, 5, 18, 21, 22, and 12, respectively, as
representative.2
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 4,
7, 8, 12, 15 through 20, and 22, but reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 23, and 24.
With regard to the first group of claims, according to
the examiner (Answer, page 4), Meyer discloses all of the
limitations of claim 4 except for analyzing the samples using
a neural network which includes a neural network data
We note that the examiner added Coker to the primary combination of2
Meyer and Sheppard to reject claims 6, 14, and 19. However, since appellant
has relied solely on the arguments for claims 4, 12, and 17, respectively,
with no separate arguments regarding Coker, we will treat claims 6, 14, and 19
with the claims from which they depend, claims 5, 13, and 18.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007