Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
A) User viewable Indicia
With respect to independent claim 59, Appellants argue at
pages 7-9 of the brief, "[t]he Wood et al. and Reeder references
do not disclose or suggest "displaying user-viewable indicia
descriptive of the protocol at a medical diagnostics location,
wherein the user-viewable indicia include an exemplary image
obtainable via the protocol." The Examiner rebuts this at pages
16-20 of the answer by pointing out that the reference images of
Wood et al. are "exemplary images" and also meet the claim
limitation of being "obtainable via the protocol." Further, the
Examiner points out that the references images are also
"descriptive of the protocol." We agree with the Examiner on all
these points. However, we still find the Appellants' argument
persuasive. The Examiner has taken the exemplary image of Wood
et al. which is found at the diagnostic end of the Wood et al.
process and moved the exemplary image to the protocol selection
process at the front of the Wood et al. process. The Examiner
states various reasons at page 7 of the answer for making this
modification to the Wood et al. process. We find that this
represents improper hindsight absent some teaching that it is
known to select a process to be performed using an image
exemplary of the result of said process to be performed.
Although not an analogous art, an example of this type of process
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007