Appeal No. 1999-0289
Application No. 08/336,690
of data per track on a DAT and to number these blocks
sequentially. It is also the examiner’s position that with
regard to the actual content of the information recorded, i.e.,
name, medical history, etc., this is of “no patentable
significance.” The examiner also contended that it would have
been obvious to “select the most common medical information, i.e,
the medical history of the patient” [Paper No. 45, page 2] to be
recorded, given that it would have been obvious to record medical
information on a DAT.
In addition to providing two declarations by Koichi Koike
under 37 CFR 1.132, appellant also makes the following arguments:
1. Ichikawa does not suggest the “single storage medium” of
the claimed invention.
2. Ichikawa does not teach the recording of medical
information pertaining to an “individual” patient (ID
information, case history, medicative history, examination image
history, and examination images) on a single storage medium.
3. The storage medium of Ichikawa is not divided into a
plurality of recording areas, as is the DAT of the instant
claimed invention.
4. It would not have been obvious to record medical
information on a DAT at the time of the instant invention because
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007