Appeal No. 2006-1470 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/122,299
Appellant also argues that Feierbach does not store data that can be considered
medical records. In appellant's opinion, in order for data to be considered medical
records it must include identity, healthcare provider, past and present health status and
medical examination findings information.
We do not agree. In our view, data that relate to the medical status of the
individual are medical records as broadly claimed. The information stored on the device
of Feierbach relate to the physiological attributes of the patient and as such is a medical
record.
In any case, even if we agreed with the appellant that the information stored on
the Feierbach device is not medical record information, the Feierbach device has the
capability to store a medical record as such would read on the appellant's device.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 because the appellant
has not advanced arguments regarding the separate patentability of these claims.
In regard to claim 4, the appellant argues that Feierbach does not describe an
external visible mark or tattoo regarding the identity of the implanted device.
We do not agree. Feierbach clearly discloses a tattoo to indicate the position
and identity of the device (col. 10, lines 24 to 26). Therefore, we will also sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007