Appeal 2007-1451
Application 09/970,146
1 The Appellants contend that combining Maseda with Lieber would
2 impermissibly change the operation of Lieber (Br. 22-23), that there is no objective
3 reason to combine Maseda with Lieber (Br. 23-24), and that the rejection fails to
4 consider the claims as a whole (Br. 24-26).
5 Thus, the issues pertinent to this appeal are
6 • Whether the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
7 anticipated by Maseda is proper. In particular, the issue turns on whether the
8 art applied shows at least one electrode coupled with the device body, where
9 the at least one electrode is configured to transmit and receive electrical
10 signals to and from tissue.
11 • Whether the rejection of claims 9-10, 12-14, 16, 21-23, 26, 28-29, 33, and
12 58-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lieber and Maseda is
13 proper. In particular, the issue turns on whether the teachings of Lieber and
14 Maseda can be properly combined.
15
16 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
17 The following Findings of Fact (FF), supported by a preponderance of
18 substantial evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
19 Specification and Claim Terms
20 01. Rheometric material is a material that stiffens upon application of energy
21 thereto (Specification 15:19-20).
22
23
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013