Appeal No. 2005-1147 4
Application No. 09/834,440
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be fully met by the disclosure of Mills [answer,
page 4]. With respect to each of independent claims 1, 9 and 17,
appellants argue that the claims recite measurements at adjacent
areas on a body part, whereas Mills discloses measurements made
at adjacent fingers. Appellants argue that each individual
finger in Mills constitutes a separate body part. Thus,
appellants argue that the separate body parts of Mills does not
anticipate the claimed separate areas on a single body part.
Appellants also point to portions of Mills which they allege
demonstrate that Mills contemplated using combinations of body
parts rather than a single body part as claimed [brief, pages 6-
8]. The examiner responds that the hand in Mills is a single
body part, and the adjacent fingers constitute adjacent areas on
the hand. The examiner asserts that the appropriate
interpretation of the claimed invention permits the hand in Mills
to meet the claimed single body part. The examiner also explains
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007