Ex Parte ROFF - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2001-1517                                                                                        
              Application No. 09/132,285                                                                                  


              Kavanagh, Kevin T., MD, MS, “PROMOTION OF PATIENT APPOINTMENT                                               
              COMPLIANCE IN INDIGENT PEDIATRIC MEDICAL CARE BY USE OF A                                                   
              MICROCOMPUTER”, Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology, pp. 755-760, 1989                              
              (Kavanagh).                                                                                                 
              Dini, Eugene F. et al., “EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER-GENERATED TELEPHONE                                      
              MESSAGES IN INCREASING CLINIC VISITS,” ARCH PEDIATR ADOLESC MED. Vol.                                       
              149, pp 902-905, Aug. 1995.                                                                                 
                     Claims 4-7, 9, 11-13, 19-21, 23, 25-30, 32, and 34 stand rejected under 35                           
              U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavanagh in view of JAMA, Cummings and                              
              Bank Ad.  Claims 8, 22, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                
              unpatentable over Kavanagh in view of JAMA, Cummings and Bank Ad in view of Dini.                           
              Claims 10, 24, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       
              Kavanagh in view of JAMA, Cummings and Bank Ad in view of Landry.                                           
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                        
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                         
              answer1 (Paper No. 15, mailed Sep. 27, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support                        
              of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed Sep. 5, 2000) and reply                    
              brief (Paper No. 16, filed Oct. 12, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.                           
                                                       OPINION                                                            

                     1    We note that the examiner has incorporated the rejection from the final rejection, dated Dec.   
              20, 1999, but we do not find a statement of each of the grounds of rejection therein.  The final rejection  
              incorporates the statement of the rejection from the first office action, Paper No. 3, mailed Sep. 22, 1999.
              This is improper under MPEP 1208, SECTION “ANSWER”, SUBPARAGRAPH(A).  Additionally, the final               
              rejection merely states a comparison of the claims to previous combinations of claims that were previously  
              rejected in the first office action.  Rather than remand the application for a proper statement of the grounds
              of rejection, we will refer the first office action and the references by the examiner.                     
                                                            3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007