Appeal No. 2004-1461
Application No. 09/461,883
consent is also not persuasive. In our view it does not matter
whether the consent in Iliff constitutes informed consent. The
very fact that the consent in Iliff is not informed consent, as
argued by appellants, provides the very motivation for modifying
Iliff in the manner proposed by the examiner. In other words, it
was understood in this art that any consent obtained from a
patient should be informed consent. To the extent that the
consent in Iliff may be considered uninformed consent, the
artisan would have been motivated to improve the consent
procedure so that there would be no question that the consent was
informed consent. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to
look to prior art which provides acceptable informed consent.
Rakshit clearly provides the type of informed consent which would
improve upon the type of consent obtained in Iliff. We agree
with the examiner that the artisan would have been motivated to
modify the system of Iliff so that the consent is obtained in the
manner taught by Rakshit to ensure that the consent is informed
consent. Both references relate to the treatment of medical
conditions so that the artisan should have been familiar with
each of the references.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007