Appeal No. 2002-0104
Application No. 09/254,605
etc., which can be connected to the proximal end of the cable, on
the one hand, and an electrode connected to the distal end of the
cable, on the other hand" (page 1 of specification, first
paragraph).
Appealed claims 11-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Comte in view of Dahl.
Appellant submits at page 7 of the Brief that "[t]he
patentability of dependent claims 12-23 is not argued separately
from the patentability of independent claim 11" (penultimate
paragraph). Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 11.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. We are, however, in complete agreement with
the examiner's analysis and application of the applied prior art
as well as his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning
as our own in sustaining the rejection of record, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
Comte, as explained by the examiner, discloses a medical
electrode cable with the same utility as appellant's cable which
comprises a plurality of wires, forming a wire set, which are
disposed in a side-by-side relationship (conductors 11 of Comte
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007