Appeal No. 2004-1546
Application No. 09/030,989
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner
and Appellants in support of their respective positions. This review leads us
to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded. We
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we
refer to the Answer and the Brief.
1. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejected claims 16 to 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dias and Omori together or
in combination with Sites and Schenk. We will limit our discussion to claims
16, 18, 21, 23 and 30, the only independent claims.
According to the Examiner, Dias discloses a system that is suitable for
a medical communication system that includes a bus, interface units and
peripheral units. However, Dias does not show different coupling means for
coupling to the bus and the peripheral units. (Answer, p. 3). Omori
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007