Appeal No. 2005-2220
Application No. 09/335,189
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Kraslavsky et al (Kraslavsky) 5,537,626 July 16, 1996
Halvorson 4,847,764 July 11, 1989
THE REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 26 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Halvorson in view of Kraslavsky. Throughout the opinion we make
reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ argument set forth in the
brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 26
through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, “Halvorson fails to teach a
display means for displaying the correlation between the drug type code and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007