Appeal No. 2004-1461
Application No. 09/461,883
not the patient has reviewed all of the data and which
subsequently prints out a consent form. The examiner cites
Rakshit as teaching a system for determining informed consent
from a patient. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to modify the disease management system of
Iliff to include instructions for determining informed consent as
taught by Rakshit [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that although Iliff teaches determining
consent, it is not informed consent. Appellants also argue that
Iliff is concerned with disease therapy and not with medical
procedures as claimed. Appellants argue that Rakshit does not
suggest use of a web server, a network interface, and multiple
databases as part of an informed consent procedure. Finally,
appellants argue that there is no suggestion or motivation to
combine the references [brief, pages 9-12].
The examiner responds that the discussion of [informed]
consent in Iliff provides a nexus to the informed consent
teachings of Rakshit. The examiner also maintains his belief
that the consent in Iliff is informed consent and that Rakshit
teaches the use of a series of questions to test the patient’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007