== Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample ==
{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Sl.No.'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Patent/Publication No.'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''IPC ClassesApplication Date'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of Publication'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of rejection'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''FR or N/FR'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Rejection type'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''101 Rejection'''</font>
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#CCFFFF"|US20030176773A1US20060094954A1|A61B0005001/21/2005|102 5/4/2006|2/17/2009|N/FR|101 and 103 102 rejections|Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Vining et al. (678541 0).
|N/A
|Claims 1 - 1 1, 13, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128.
|1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and hrther in view of Gracely et al., "A Multiple Random Staircase Method of Psychological Pain Assessment", (cited by applicant). 2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Progress in<br>Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in<br>Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128.
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20030181818A1US20040078241A1|A61B00050452 10/7/2003|4/22/2004|2/13/2009|FR|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 10 and 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 based on Supreme Court precedent, and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a 5 101 process must (1) be tied to a particular machine (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876). The process steps in claims (10 and 11) are not tied to a particular apparatus nor do they execute a transformation. Thus, they are non-statutory.|Claims 1-5, 8-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259.|Claims 1-5, 8-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259 in view of Oon, U.S. Patent Number 7,321,861.|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<nowikifont color="#CCFFCC">'''3'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040176679A1|3/15/2004|9/9/2004|12/12/2008|FR|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections|Claims 92, 521-546 and 573-598 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 92, 521-546 and 573-598 defines a carrier medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code).|Claims 91, 92, 495-503, 505-509, 511-513, 515-518, 521-529, 531-535, 537-539, 541-544, 547-555, 557-561, 563-565, 567-570, 573-581, 583-587, 589-591 and 593-596 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Halmann et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,151,856.|Claims 504, 510, 514, 519, 530, 536, 540, 545, 556, 562, 566, 571, 582, 588, 592 and 597 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halmann et al., U.S. Patent No.5,151,856|Claims 504, 506, 507, 530, 532, 533, 556, 558, 559, 582, 584 and 585 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''4'''</nowikifont> A61N0001362|align = "center"|US20060031022A1|10/4/2005|2/9/2006|12/16/2008|N/FR|101, 102 and 112|Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|Claims 1-1 1, 13-16,20,22-24,45, and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(l) as being anticipated by Levinson et al. (US 200210 177 167).|N/A|Claims 1-20,22-24,45, and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''5'''</font>|align = "center"|US20060084847A1|11/30/2005|4/20/2006|11/25/2008|FR|101 and 102 rejections|1. Claim 19 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239. 2. Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239 in view of Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No 200410122489.|1. Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. US Patent Publication Number 6,198,394. 2. Claims 1-3 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being<br>anticipated by Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489. 2. Claims 4-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kehr et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489.|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''6'''</font>|align = "center"|US20030195770A1|6/4/2002|10/16/2003|1/12/2009|FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1-and 2, 4-5, 7, 10 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(be) as being anticipated by Arand Davies et al. (5,8 17,027United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2003/0046114).|Claims 1. Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10,27-34,36,38 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious unpatentable over Kim Davies et al. in view of Pestotnik et al. (6,708,058United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666) . 2. Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al.<br>in view of Arand Pestotnik et al. (5,817,027United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''7'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040078219A1|10/21/2002|4/22/2004|12/19/2008|FR|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21-25, 29-38 and 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Knapp USPN 6, 278,999 2. Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-38, and 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Alleckson et al. US Publication Number US 200610064323 Al.|Claims 12, 13, 15, 17 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knapp as applied to claims 1, 12, 14 and 25 above, and further in view of Walker et al. USPN 6,302,844 (Hereinafter Walker).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''8'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050004476A1|5/28/2004|1/6/2005|10/3/2008|FR|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 39 & 41-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2003101 67081 ) in view of Zhu et al. (US 200310220582). 2. Claims 51-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over<br>Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>081) in view of Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>582), and further in view of Jensen et al. (US<br>6,752,765).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''9'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050080322A1|8/16/2004|4/14/2005|11/13/2008|FR|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|1. Claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-22,24-26,28-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being unpatentable over US Patent Number Mault US Patent Number 6,478,736 B1 in view of Haller 200210052539. 2. Claims 1-4,7,11-16,19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Heinonen et al. US Patent Number 5,772,586. 3. Claims 1-7,ll-13,15,16,19-22,24,25,28-30,33-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Increa Oy WO 01l15056. 4. Claims 1-8,ll-17,19-22,24-26,28-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Number Mault US Patent Number 6,478,736 B1.|1. Claims 1-4,7, 11-16, 19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen et al. US Patent Number 5,772,586 in view of Haller 200210052539. 2. Claims 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Increa Oy WO01115056. 3. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Increa Oy WO0 111 5056 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of DeLuca et al. US Patent Number 6,238,338 B1. 4. Claims 23,27, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Increa Oy WO 0 111 5056 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Echerer US Patent Number 5,801,755 A and Thomason US Patent Number 6,3 17,039 Bl.|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''10'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050090372A1|6/24/2004|4/28/2005|12/23/2008|N/FR|103 and 112 rejections|N/A|N/A|Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce et al. U.S. PGPub No. 200310163353.|Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''11'''</font>|align = "center"|US20060100533A1|11/7/2005|5/11/2006|10/30/2008|N/FR|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|Claims I, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by lwabuchi et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 B1)|Claims 2, 4, 8 and 10-1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over lwabuchi et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 Bl) in view of Smith et al. (US 2004101 71 961 A1 ).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''12'''</font>|align = "center"|US20060178595A1|12/13/2005|8/10/2006|2/27/2009|FR|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims I, 4, 6-14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002). 2. Claims 15, 17-1 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radar Chart 2002). 3. Claims 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002) and Radar Chart (2002) as applied to claims 17 and 21 above, and further in view of Maurer et al. (US 5,873,900). 4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002), Radar Chart (2002), and Maurer Maurer et al. (US 5,873,900) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US 4,438,130).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''13'''</font>|align = "center"|US20060235315A1|3/18/2005|10/19/2006|2/24/2009|N/FR|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 1-20, 28-80 and 96-1 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Verrier et al (US 5,902,250) in view of Verrier et al (US 5,265,617). 2. Claims 21 -27 and 81 -95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geva et al (US 200410073098).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''14'''</font>|align = "center"|US20060253097A1|10/21/2005|11/9/2006|12/22/2008|N/FR|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 1-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2003102081 13) in view of Mauro (US 5957841). 2. Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault in view of Sterling (US 2005100361 47).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''15'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20030191406A1
|A61B000511 <nowiki>5/13/2003|10/9/2003|8/27/2004|<N/nowiki> G06F001900FR
|101 and 112 rejections
|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6,561,992. This is a double patenting rejection.
|Claims 2, 12- 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''416'''</font>|align = "center"|US20030194118A1US20050240112A1|A61B00050452 <nowiki>6/22/2005|<10/nowiki> G06T00076027/2005|9/20/2007|N/FR|101, 102 and 103 rejections|1. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention, despite a slight difference in wording, as that of claims 42-51 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6,936,010. This is a double patenting rejection. 2. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 42-51 of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,010.|Claims 1-6,ll-14, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (5,509,425).|Rejection information not availableClaims 7-10,15-16, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpat Feng et al. (US 5,509,425) in view of Oriol et al. (US 5,596,993).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''17'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040097814A1
|12/9/2003
|5/20/2004
|4/13/2007
|FR
|101 rejection
|Claims 8-27, 33, 38-40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''518'''</font>|align = "center"|US20030195770A1US20050251054A1|G01N003348 <nowiki>5/10/2004|<11/nowiki> A61B000500 <nowiki>10/2005|<11/nowiki> G06F001900 <nowiki>16/2006|<N/nowiki> G06Q001000 FR|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 1-34 and 45-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 13-18, 20, 24, 26-30, 46-51, 55-59, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Risk et al 6416473.|1. Claims 4, 25, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et a16416473 in view of Hampton 6875418. 2. Claims 8, 9, 19, 32, 33, 54, 63, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Eisenberg et al 54921 17. 3. Claims 11, 12, 31, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al6416473. 4. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Sarma et al 5419338 and Malik et al 6438409. 5. Claims 23, 34, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et a1 in view of Lerner 6490480.|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<nowikifont color="#CCFFCC">|'''19'''</nowikifont> G06Q003000 |align = "center"|US20060089548A1|10/19/2005|4/27/2006|8/28/2006|N/FR|101 and 112 rejections|Claim 43 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1.|N/A|N/A|Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<nowikifont color="#CCFFCC">|'''20'''</nowikifont> G06Q005000|align = "center"|US20030176773A1|3/12/2002|9/18/2003|5/23/2005|FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1 - 1 1, 13, and 2 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Davies et al. (United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2003/0046114)Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128.|1. Claims 3-5 are Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al. Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and hrther in view of Pestotnik Gracely et al. , "A Multiple Random Staircase Method of Psychological Pain Assessment", (United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666cited by applicant). 2. Claims 3-10 are Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al.Progress in<br>Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in view of Pestotnik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication <nowikibr> </nowiki>2004/0260666)Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128.
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''21'''</font>|align = "center"|US20030181818A1|3/25/2002|9/25/2003|11/1/2005|FR|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Arand et al. (5,8 17,027).|Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10,27-34,36,38 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Kim et al. (6,708,058) in view of Arand et al. (5,817,027).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''22'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20030216627A1
|A61B000500 <nowiki>3/7/2003|<11/nowiki> G01J000328 <nowiki>20/2003|<3/15/nowiki> G01N002135 <nowiki>2005|<N/nowiki> G01N002149FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''723'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20030223905A1
|A61B000515 <nowiki>3/26/2003|<12/nowiki> G01G00194144/2003|6/11/2007|FR
|103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 4-12 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''824'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20030233031A1
|A61B000500 <nowiki>12/6/2002|12/18/2003|3/5/2004|<N/nowiki> G06F001900FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''925'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20030235817A1
|A61B000500 <nowiki>3/21/2003|<12/nowiki> A61B0005053 <nowiki>25/2003|<5/nowiki> G01N003348711/2007|FR
|102 rejection
|N/A
|Claims 52-56, 88,105-107, and 109-1 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cygnus, Inc. (WO 031000127, reference AB-6 in the information disclosure, statement filed 28 July 2003.
| N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1026'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040003670A1
|A61B00051037/2/2002| 1/8/2004|8/10/2004|N/FR|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''11'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040010185A1|A61B000500|Rejection information not available|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1227'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040024296A1
|A61B0005008/8/2003|2/5/2004|5/18/2005|N/FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1328'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040030582A1
|A61B0005008/6/2003|2/12/2004|10/28/2004|N/FR
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''14'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040078241A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G06F001721 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G06F001900 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G06Q005000|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 10 and 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 based on Supreme Court precedent, and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a 5 101 process must (1) be tied to a particular machine (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876). The process steps in claims (10 and 11) are not tied to a particular apparatus nor do they execute a transformation. Thus, they are non-statutory.|Claims 1-5, 8-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259.|Claims 1-5, 8-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259 in view of Oon, U.S. Patent Number 7,321,861.|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1529'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040075433A1
|A61B0005055 <nowiki>10/18/2002|<4/22/2004|3/25/nowiki> A61B000600 <nowiki>2004|<N/nowiki> G06F001900FR
|102 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. P.N. 6,058,322 (Nishikawa).
| N/A
|Claims 24-28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''16'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040078219A1|G06F001900|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21-25, 29-38 and 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Knapp USPN 6, 278,999 2. Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-38, and 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Alleckson et al. US Publication Number US 200610064323 Al.|Claims 12, 13, 15, 17 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knapp as applied to claims 1, 12, 14 and 25 above, and further in view of Walker et al. USPN 6,302,844 (Hereinafter Walker).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''17'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040097814A1|A61B0005024 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B00050452|101 rejection|Claims 8-27, 33, 38-40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|N/A|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1830'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040133094A1
|A61B000600 <nowiki>10/24/2003|7/8/2004|6/11/2008|<N/nowiki> A61B000603FR
|102 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1931'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040170304A1
|A61B0003113 <nowiki>2/28/2003|<9/nowiki> A61B000518 <nowiki>2/2004|<12/nowiki> G08B00210628/2006|FR
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2032'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040176697A1
|A61B0005046 <nowiki>11/3/2003|9/9/2004|3/24/2005|<N/nowiki> G06K000900FR
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''21'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040176679A1|G09B002328 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G09B002330|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections|Claims 92, 521-546 and 573-598 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 92, 521-546 and 573-598 defines a carrier medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code).|Claims 91, 92, 495-503, 505-509, 511-513, 515-518, 521-529, 531-535, 537-539, 541-544, 547-555, 557-561, 563-565, 567-570, 573-581, 583-587, 589-591 and 593-596 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Halmann et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,151,856.|Claims 504, 510, 514, 519, 530, 536, 540, 545, 556, 562, 566, 571, 582, 588, 592 and 597 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halmann et al., U.S. Patent No.5,151,856|Claims 504, 506, 507, 530, 532, 533, 556, 558, 559, 582, 584 and 585 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''22'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040181130A1|A61B0005103 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B001802|Rejection information not available|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2333'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040181260A1
|A61B0005083 <nowiki>3/11/2004|<9/16/2004|8/30/nowiki> A61N000137 <nowiki>2006|<N/nowiki> A61N0001372FR
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 14-16, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''24'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040193067A1|A61B00050452 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B000700|Rejection information not available|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2534'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040249778A1
|A61B000500 <nowiki>4/16/2004|12/9/2004|3/8/2006|<N/nowiki> G06F001900FR
|103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''26'''</font>|align = "center"|US20040254480A1|A61B0005022 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B0005021 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B0005026 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B0005029|Rejection information not available|N/A|N/A|N/A| |-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2735'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040260178A1
|A61B0005107 <nowiki>6/23/2003|<12/nowiki> A61B000800 <nowiki>23/2004|<11/15/nowiki> A61B000806 <nowiki>2005|<N/nowiki> A61B000808FR
|102 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2836'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20040267101A1
|A61B000500 <nowiki>1/12/2004|<12/nowiki> G01N002131 <nowiki>30/2004|<7/nowiki> G01N00216425/2005|FR
|102 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''29'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050004476A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61N0001365|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 39 & 41-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2003101 67081 ) in view of Zhu et al. (US 200310220582). 2. Claims 51-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over<br>Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>081) in view of Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>582), and further in view of Jensen et al. (US<br>6,752,765).| |-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3037'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20050075542A1
|A61B000500 <nowiki>6/18/2003|<4/nowiki> A61B000502057/2005|1/24/2008|FR
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claim(s) 63, and 113-120 are rejectedunder 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''31'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050080322A1|A61B000500|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|1. Claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-22,24-26,28-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being unpatentable over US Patent Number Mault US Patent Number 6,478,736 B1 in view of Haller 200210052539. 2. Claims 1-4,7,11-16,19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Heinonen et al. US Patent Number 5,772,586. 3. Claims 1-7,ll-13,15,16,19-22,24,25,28-30,33-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Increa Oy WO 01l15056. 4. Claims 1-8,ll-17,19-22,24-26,28-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Number Mault US Patent Number 6,478,736 B1.|1. Claims 1-4,7, 11-16, 19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen et al. US Patent Number 5,772,586 in view of Haller 200210052539. 2. Claims 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Increa Oy WO01115056. 3. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Increa Oy WO0 111 5056 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of DeLuca et al. US Patent Number 6,238,338 B1. 4. Claims 23,27, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Increa Oy WO 0 111 5056 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Echerer US Patent Number 5,801,755 A and Thomason US Patent Number 6,3 17,039 Bl.| |-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''32'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050090372A1|A61B000512|103 and 112 rejections|N/A|N/A|Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce et al. U.S. PGPub No. 200310163353.|Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''33'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050240112A1|A61B00050402|101, 102 and 103 rejections|1. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention, despite a slight difference in.wording, as that of claims 42-51 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6,936,010. This is a double patenting rejection. 2. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 42-51 of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,010.|Claims 1-6,ll-14, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (5,509,425).|Claims 7-10,15-16, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpat Feng et al. (US 5,509,425) in view of Oriol et al. (US 5,596,993).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''34'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050241639A1|A61B000100 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B000508 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61M001600 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A62B000700|Rejection information not available|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''35'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050251054A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B000502 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B000504 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B000508 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B001000 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G06K000962|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 1-34 and 45-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 13-18, 20, 24, 26-30, 46-51, 55-59, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Risk et al 6416473.|1. Claims 4, 25, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et a16416473 in view of Hampton 6875418. 2. Claims 8, 9, 19, 32, 33, 54, 63, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Eisenberg et al 54921 17. 3. Claims 11, 12, 31, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al6416473. 4. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Sarma et al 5419338 and Malik et al 6438409. 5. Claims 23, 34, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et a1 in view of Lerner 6490480.|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3638'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20050256389A1
|A61B001900 <nowiki>|<5/nowiki> A61B000505 <nowiki>|<17/nowiki> A61B0005103 <nowiki>2005|<11/nowiki> A61B0005117 <nowiki>|<17/nowiki> A61B000600 <nowiki>2005|<2/nowiki> A61F000200 <nowiki>|<13/nowiki> G06T000100 <nowiki>2008|</nowiki> G06T001740FR
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3739'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20050256689A1
|G01B0017005/13/2004|11/17/2005|7/2/2007|N/FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''38'''</font>|align = "center"|US20050261599A1|A61B00050402|Rejection information not available|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3940'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060017576A1
|G08B00230010/29/2004|1/26/2006|7/25/2006|N/FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''4041'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060020197A1
|A61B0005057/9/2004|1/26/2006|5/30/2008|FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''4142'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060020223A1
|A61B000505 <nowiki>7/20/2004|<1/nowiki> A61B00050426/2006|5/23/2008|FR
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|1. Claims I, 5-14 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 4,940,060) in view of Toomim et al. (US 5,505,208) and lliff (US 5,935,060). 2. Claims 2, 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 4,940,060) as modified by Toomim et al. (US 5,505,208) and lliff (US 5,935,060), as applied to claims I, 5-14 and 17-26 above, and further in view of Masopust (US 5,339,827).
|Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''42'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060031022A1
|G06F001900 <nowiki>|</nowiki> A61B000500 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G01N003348 <nowiki>|</nowiki> G01N003350
|101, 102 and 112
|Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
|Claims 1-1 1, 13-16,20,22-24,45, and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(l) as being anticipated by Levinson et al. (US 200210 177 167).
|N/A
|Claims 1-20,22-24,45, and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''43'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060052717A1
|A61B000504028/31/2005|3/9/2006|2/12/2008|FR
|102 rejection
|N/A
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''44'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060085048A1
|A61N000108 <nowiki>10/19/2005|4/20/2006|9/17/2008|<N/nowiki> A61B000505FR
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''45'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060084847A1US20060112754A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>|<7/nowiki> A61B0005103 <nowiki>11/2005|<6/nowiki> G06F001100 <nowiki>1/2006|<6/nowiki> G06Q001000 <nowiki>4/2007|<N/nowiki> G08B001314FR|101 and , 102 and 103 rejections|1. Claim 19 is Claims 13-14 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of 35 U.S. Patent NoC. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239. 2. Claim 1 101 because the claimed invention is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousnessdirected to non-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239 in view of Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No 200410122489statutory subject matter.|1. Claims 19I , 3, 8 and 10-23 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a and e) as being anticipated by Jacobsen Carlson et al. US Patent Publication Number 6,198,394-2003101 22663. 2. Claims 1-I , 3 , 8 and 1910-23 1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being<br>anticipated by Mazar et al. Mohri US Patent Publication No. 200410122489. 2200210012014. |Claims 47 and 13-1 1 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mazar Carlson et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489 as applied to claim 3 aboveall Mohri, and further in view of Kehr et alor Shibaskai. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489.|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''46'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060089548A1US20060206019A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>12/22/2005|<9/nowiki> G01B00090214/2006|101 and 112 rejections6/17/2008|Claim 43 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1.N/FR|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>63 1 (USPN 4,807,63 1).
|Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>631, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baker, Jr et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>364 (USPN 5,853,364), further in view of Baker, Jr.<nowiki>’</nowiki>847 (USPN 5,485,847).
|N/A
|Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''47'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060094954A1US20060241510A1|A61B0005058/3/2005|10/26/2006|6/4/2007|N/FR|101 and 102 rejectionsrejection|N/A|Claims 56-58, 61 -63, 65, 67-73, 75, 105-107, 109-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non15, 139-141, 144-146, 148, 150-statutory subject matter.|Claims 156, 158, 165-1 67, and 169-1 7 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(ea) as being anticipated by Vining et al. Lange (678541 0US Patent 7077810).
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''48'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060100533A1US20060247502A1|A61B000502 <nowiki>4/28/2005|<11/nowiki> A61B0005042/2006|2/26/2008|FR|102 and 103 rejectionsrejection
|N/A
|Claims I, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by lwabuchi et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 B1)N/A|Claims 13-21, 4, 8 25 and 10-1 3 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over lwabuchi et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 Bl) in view of Smith Kim et al. (US 2004101 71 961 A1 200410 15 1379).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''49'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060111944A1US20070066893A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>11/29/2005|<3/nowiki> G06Q004000 <nowiki>22/2007|<2/nowiki> G07G00011426/2008|Rejection information not availableFR|N/A103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|Claim 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mattrey (US Patent No. 6,444,192 Bl) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Patent No.6,996,549 B2).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''50'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060112754A1US20070145137A1|G01P002100 <nowiki>12/27/2005|<6/nowiki> A61B000511 <nowiki>28/2007|<8/nowiki> A63B00230231/2007|N/FR|101, 102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.N/A|N/A|1. Claims I , 3, 8 and 101-12 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(a and e) as being anticipated by Carlson et al USunpatentable over Lemelson-2003101 22663U. 2S. Claims I Patent No.: 5, 3181, 8 and 10-1 2 are rejected under 35 U521 in view of<nowiki>’</nowiki>prantz et al.S.C. 102(bhereafter bbFrantz") as being anticipated by Mohri -Patent Application Publication US 200210012014200510033599 Al. 2.|Claims 7 and 1317-14 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson Lemelson in . view of Smith et all Mohrial. (hereafter "Smith")-U.S.Patent No.: 6,854, or Shibaskai651 B2.
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''51'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060173708A1US20070214002A1|G06Q001000 <nowiki>|<4/nowiki> A61B00050030/2002|Rejection information not available9/13/2007|N3/A8/2007|N/AFR|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Malik (US2001/0037219).
|Claims 1, 4-1 0, 12-1 7, 19-25, 27-33, 35-38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Davis (US 200310028399) in view of Malik (200110037219).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''52'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060178595A1US20040181130A1|A61B0019003/12/2004|103 rejection9/16/2004|N/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|1. Claims I, 4, 6-14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002). 2. Claims 15, 17-1 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radar Chart 2002). 3. Claims 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002) and Radar Chart (2002) as applied to claims 17 and 21 above, and further in view of Maurer et al. (US 5,873,900). 4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002), Radar Chart (2002), and Maurer Maurer et al. (US 5,873,900) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US 4,438,130).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''53'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060206019A1US20040193067A1|A61B0005003/24/2004|102 and 103 rejections9/30/2004|N/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>63 1 (USPN 4,807,63 1).
|Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>631, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baker, Jr et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>364 (USPN 5,853,364), further in view of Baker, Jr.<nowiki>’</nowiki>847 (USPN 5,485,847).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''54'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060235315A1US20040254480A1|A61B000504 <nowiki>|<2/nowiki> A61B00050456 <nowiki>25/2004|<12/nowiki> A61B00050476 <nowiki>16/2004|<N/nowiki> A61B00050488 <nowiki>A|<N/nowiki> A61B00050496 <nowiki>A|<Examination information not available|N/nowiki> A61B000511A|103 rejectionN/A
|N/A
|
|1. Claims 1-20, 28-80 and 96-1 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Verrier et al (US 5,902,250) in view of Verrier et al (US 5,265,617). 2. Claims 21 -27 and 81 -95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geva et al (US 200410073098).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''55'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060241510A1US20050241639A1|A61B0005087/12/2005|102 rejection11/3/2005|N/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 56-58, 61 -63, 65, 67-73, 75, 105-1 07, 109-1 15, 139-141, 144-146, 148, 150-1 56, 158, 165-1 67, and 169-1 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Lange (US Patent 7077810).
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''56'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060247502A1US20050261599A1|A61B000500 <nowiki>5/21/2004|<11/nowiki> A61B00050524/2005|103 rejectionN/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 13-2 1,25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 200410 15 1379).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''57'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20060253097A1US20060111944A1|A61M00310012/2/2005|103 rejection5/25/2006|N/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|1. Claims 1-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2003102081 13) in view of Mauro (US 5957841). 2. Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault in view of Sterling (US 2005100361 47).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''58'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20070053558A1US20060173708A1|G01N002304 <nowiki>1/28/2005|8/3/2006|N/A|<N/nowiki> G06K000900A|Rejection Examination information not available
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''59'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20070066893A1US20070053558A1|A61B000600 <nowiki>|<9/nowiki> A61B0005107 <nowiki>6/2005|<3/nowiki> A61B000800 <nowiki>8/2007|<N/nowiki> A61B000808 <nowiki>A|<N/nowiki> A61K004922A|103 rejectionExamination information not available|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|Claim 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mattrey (US Patent No. 6,444,192 Bl) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Patent No.6,996,549 B2).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''60'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20070149890A1
|A61B00050412/22/2005|Rejection 6/28/2007|N/A|N/A|Examination information not available
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''61'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20070145137A1US20040010185A1|G06K000710 <nowiki>7/11/2002|<1/nowiki> G06F00170015/2004|103 rejectionN/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson- U.S. Patent No.: 5,181,521 in view of<nowiki>’</nowiki>prantz et al. (hereafter bbFrantz")-Patent Application Publication US 200510033599 Al. 2. Claims 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson in . view of Smith et al. (hereafter "Smith")-U.S.Patent No.: 6,854,651 B2.
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''62'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20070179398A1US20030194118A1|A61B0005004/22/2003|Rejection 10/16/2003|N/A|N/A|Examination information not available
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''63'''</font>
|align = "center"|US20070214002A1US20070179398A1|G06Q001000 <nowiki>8/24/2005|<8/nowiki> A61B0005002/2007|102 and 103 rejectionsN/A|N/A|Examination information not available|N/A|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Malik (US2001/0037219).
|Claims 1, 4-1 0, 12-1 7, 19-25, 27-33, 35-38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Davis (US 200310028399) in view of Malik (200110037219).
|N/A
|-
|}