Appeal No. 2006-3105
Application No. 09/397,494
language of independent claim 26 to support this argument. Therefore, Appellants'
argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Appellants’ argument that it would not have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention that communication of technical medical
data over long distances to remote locations having minimal technical infrastructure
could be easily achieved (Reply Br. 6), again we find no express support in the language
of independent claim 26 to support this argument. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
Since Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 26 and claims 31 and 34
which are grouped therewith.
With respect to independent claim 32, the Examiner additionally relies upon the
teachings of Wong to teach guiding a user through set up of a test. Appellants argue that
Wong contains no specific teaching concerning communication of data from a probe
array experiment over a network nor does it provide any motivation to combine with any
of the teachings of Layne or Dehlinger (Br. 8). We find that Layne teaches adequate
communication for multimedia formats and visual depiction of results data. (Layne at
col. 11, ll. 30-45.) Again, we find that the teachings of Layne alone would have been
sufficient to meet the two steps recited in the method of independent claim 32. As long
as Layne teaches the display of steps of set up and execution and at least a single end
result of the experiment, we find that Layne teaches the claimed invention. The
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007