Appeal No. 1999-0028
Application No. 08/513,610
The obviousness rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 16
through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
McMahon in view of Sklar.
Independent method claim 12 requires, inter alia, the
generation of an electrical signal encoding patterns in an
iris, and the comparing of pattern data in that signal with
previously stored pattern data to derive diagnostic
information.
Appellant points out that the “customary procedure” is
for a comparison to be made mentally by a iridology
practitioner and since neither reference discloses or suggests
comparing pattern data in an electrical signal with previously
stored pattern data to derive diagnostic information, it would
not have been obvious to implement the diagnostic procedure
automatically (brief, page 6). Consistent with appellant’s
point of view, the difficulty we have with the examiner’s
rejection is that, absent appellant’s own teaching, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007