Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
reading this as an option being selected and the instrument being
programmed as a result of the selected option, but the claimed
limitation of programming the instrument “in accordance with” the
selected option is not so limiting (answer-page 11).
Moreover, while appellant argues that the indication of set
points in Levine cannot be considered as “selecting the option”
because it is isolated from the function of programming, the
examiner contends that “it is reasonable to interpret the visual
indications of Levine as options, and that the programming of the
chart recorder is done in accordance with those options” (answer-
pages 11-12). The examiner also applies this argument to
“programming the recorder by correlating the position of the pen
relative to the chart during the selection of the parameters,” as
in independent claim 9.
We have considered the evidence before us, including, inter
alia, the Levine reference and the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, and we conclude therefrom that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation, with regard to
the instant claimed subject matter, which has not been
successfully rebutted by appellant.
Our review of the instant claims finds that the claims do,
in fact, require the programming of the instrument, or chart
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007