Appeal No. 2006-1746
Application No. 10/375,679
these references, in combination, only yield either a non-remote nerve stimulator
that is rigidly coupled to the needle, or a remote nerve stimulator having a display
that is not rigidly coupled to the needle.
With regard to the rejection of claims 13, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chester in view of Griffin, the Examiner
contends (Answer 8) that although Chester fails to teach that the LED 28 is a
multicolored LED or multicolor display, that Griffith teaches that it was known to
utilize a multi-color LED or display with a nerve stimulator. Applicants contend
(Br. 15 and 16) that Griffith's color display has nothing to do with the level of
current provided, but rather correlates to differing amounts of electrical charge.
We affirm-in-part.
ISSUES
I. With regard to the rejection of claims 36-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
(first paragraph) the issue is whether Applicants were in possession of
the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application.
II. With regard to the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-25,
28-31, and 33 the issue is whether Applicants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The
issue turns on whether the visual indicator (display) of Chester can be
considered to be both remote from the nerve stimulator and proximate
to the needle.
III. With regard to the rejection of claims 20 and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) the issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that the
combined teachings and suggestions of Cory and Chester would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013