Appeal No. 2004-1461
Application No. 09/461,883
understanding of the consent. The examiner notes that appellants
have argued alleged individual deficiencies in the references
with respect to teachings for which they are not relied on.
Finally, the examiner responds that the artisan would have been
motivated to modify Iliff to include the informed consent
teachings of Rakshit [answer, pages 7-9].
Appellants respond by reiterating their belief that the
consent in Iliff is not informed consent. Appellants also
respond that Iliff is unrelated to the present invention and no
modification of Iliff is proper [reply brief].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 16 and 26. Appellants’ argument that Iliff does not
relate to a medical procedure is not persuasive for at least two
reasons. First, the artisan would have understood that providing
information with respect to the treatment for a disease clearly
suggests the recitation of providing information concerning a
medical procedure. Second, Rakshit clearly relates to providing
information with respect to a medical procedure so that the
collective teachings clearly relate to a medical procedure.
Appellants’ argument that the consent in Iliff is not informed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007