Appeal No. 2001-0661 11
Application No. 08/480,232
specification, wherein appellants state that in order to protect the electronic circuitry in
such skin-mounted devices and for a variety of other reasons “these devices have
generally utilized a substantially rigid container or assembly” (specification, page 5;
emphasis added).
The examiner should reevaluate the patentability of claims 51, 53 and 56 in view of
above noted prior art, and take whatever action is deemed appropriate in the event it is
determined that any of claims 51, 53 and 56 is unpatentable over such the prior art.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 7-13, 17-21, 27-30, 34 and 40-47 as being anticipated by
Sibalis is reversed as to claims 1, 7-13, 17-20, 30, 34 and 40-47, but is affirmed as to
claims 21 and 27-29.
The rejection of claims 2-6, 14-16, 22-26, 31-33, 35-39 and 51-56 as being
unpatentable over Sibalis is reversed as to claims 2-6, 14-16, 22, 24, 26, 31-33, 35-39,
and 51-56, but is affirmed with respect to claims 23 and 25.
In addition, this case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the matter
noted above.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one or more claims, this decision
contains a remand. 37 CFR § 1.196(e) provides that
whenever a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences includes or allows a remand, that decision shall not be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007