Appeal 2007-0932
Application 10/058,924
display of image data relative to a person as a part of the identifying
information and the subject information.
Therefore, the artisan would well appreciate that the teachings of
Wang would have made even more accurate and permanent and impeccable
the patient ID information in McDonald than is required according to the
teachings we identified earlier at columns 4 and 5 of that reference. The
Reply Brief, which merely repeats the arguments in the Brief in an
unpersuasive manner, fails to address the Examiner’s indication at page 21
of the Answer that it is the combined teachings of the references that are key
to a proper combinability analysis within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and not any
physical or structural combinability.
As to the second stated rejection of claims 4, 11, and 13, Appellants
rely for patentability upon the arguments presented with respect to
independent claim 1 according to the arguments regarding the second stated
rejection at pages 26 and 27 of the principal Brief on appeal. Appellants do
not contest here the Examiner’s reliance upon and the teachings of TIFF,
alleging only that the deficiencies of McDonald and Wang are not made up
for by this latter reference. The rejection of these claims is therefore
affirmed.
Turning to the third stated rejection where the Examiner relies upon
McDonald in view Wang, further in view of Kuperstein, Appellants present
arguments at page 27 with respect to this rejection. Again, Appellants argue
for patentability of claims 5 through 7, 9, 10, and 39 based upon the
arguments presented with respect to independent claim 1 and not for any
particular features recited in claim 5, for example, among these claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013