Changes

Bilski Diagnostic Methods Big Sample Sheet

40,043 bytes added, 07:04, 18 April 2009

/* */

= =

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''38'''

|align = "center"|US 20080146956

|align = "center"|2/12/2009

|align = "center"|12/17/2006

|103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1,4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,171,8 1 1) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628. 2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,171,8 1 1) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628, and further in view of Wong et al., Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 253-257. 3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S.Patent 6,17 1,8 1 I), in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:62 1-628 and further in view of Aygen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060 17 1887). 4. Claims 6, 8- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek<nowiki>’</nowiki>s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori. 5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S.Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek<nowiki>’</nowiki>s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori, in view of Aygen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060 17 1887) 6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek<nowiki>’</nowiki>s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628, and further in view of Wong et al., Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 253-257,

|Claim 1 is 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"|'''39'''

|align = "center"|US 20080146905

|align = "center"|3/19/2009

|align = "center"|10/4/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-4, 6-1 1, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Weinberg (US 5,519,221).

|Claims 5, 12-1 8, 21 -25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg (US 5,519 221) in view of Nelson et al (US 7,291,841 B2).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''40'''

|align = "center"|US 20080146897

|align = "center"|3/13/2009

|align = "center"|12/7/2005

|103 rejection

|N/A

|1. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen et a1 (Two-dimensional near-infrared transillumination imaging of biomedical media with a chromium-doped forsterite laser. Applied Optics 37(22) p. 5327-5336. 1998), hereinafter Gayen (1998), of record, in view of Levenson et al (US Patent No. 6,750,964), hereinafter Levenson (<nowiki>’</nowiki>964). 2. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen (1998) and Levenson (<nowiki>’</nowiki>964) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alfano (US Patent No. , 5,371,368), hereinafter Alfano (<nowiki>’</nowiki>368), of record. 3. Claims 13, 16-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen . (1998) and Levenson (<nowiki>’</nowiki>964) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al (Ballistic 2-D Imaging Through Scattering Walls Using an Ultrafast Optical Kerr Gate. Science. 253:p. 769-771. 1991), hereinafter Wang (1991), of record.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''41'''

|align = "center"|US 20080139967

|align = "center"|2/4/2009

|align = "center"|10/18/2006

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1, 5-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent Publication 2002101 93670 (Garfield et al.).

|1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication 2002101 93670 (Garfield et al.) as modified by United States Patent 6421558 (Huey et al.). 2. Claims 3, 4, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-1 7, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 6663570 (Mott et al.). 3. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5301 680 (Rosenberg). 4. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-1 7, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 4781 200 (Baker). 5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. and Mott et al. as applied to claims 3, 4, 19 and 23 above, and further in view of Baker. 6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5442940 (Secker et al.). 6. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5670749 (Hon). 7. Claims 2-4 and I I are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al.

|1. Claim 8 contains the trademarksltrade names Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Zigbie, and wireless USB. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''42'''

|align = "center"|US 20080139951

|align = "center"|11/26/2008

|align = "center"|12/8/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-5, 7-9, 1 1-1 2, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Porat et al. (USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078; hereinafter "Porat").

|1. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078). Porat describes trending the cardiac flow turbulence over a time period; however, the detection of complete occlusion of the blood vessel is not specified. 2. Claims 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078) in view of Benedict et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 5,520,190; hereinafter "Benedict"). 3. Claims 13, 14, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078) in view of Kadhiresan(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 5,935,081).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''43'''

|align = "center"|US 20080139898

|align = "center"|10/28/2008

|align = "center"|12/7/2006

|102 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1-1 4, and 29-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sunvit et al. US Patent Number 6,024,699.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''44'''

|align = "center"|US 20080132800

|align = "center"|1/30/2009

|align = "center"|11/30/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1,3,4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Denker et al (6,592,518). 2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dimmer et al (2004101 38554).

|1. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079). 2. Claims 6-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chinchoy (2004101 72079) in view of Denker et al (6,592,518). 3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Ben-Heim (6,285,898). 4. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Ben-Heim (6,285,898), and further in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079). 5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimmer et al (2004101 38554) in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''45'''

|align = "center"|US 20080132799

|align = "center"|3/19/2009

|align = "center"|11/30/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Brunner et a1 (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0004652).

|1. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunner et a1 in view of Karjalainen et a1 (Karjalainen, P. A,; Tarvainen, M. R.; Laitinen, T., "Principal Component Regression Approach for QT Variability Estimation, " Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2005. IEEE-EMBS 2005. 27th Annual International Conference, vol., no., pp. 1145-1 147, 17-18 Jan. 2006) 2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunner et a1 in view of Berger (US Patent No. 5,560,368).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''46'''

|align = "center"|US 20080132797

|align = "center"|3/6/2009

|align = "center"|10/31/2007

|103 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticiapated by U. S. Publication No. 200210172323 to Karellas et al.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''47'''

|align = "center"|US 20080119724

|align = "center"|3/18/2009

|align = "center"|11/17/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1, 10-1 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DiGioia Ill et al. (US Patent No. 5,880,976). 2. Claims 1-4, 7-1 4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mire et al. (US Pub No. 2004101 71 924). 3. Claim 1, 6-7, 9-1 1, 15-1 6, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sahay et al. (US Patent No. 5,824,085).

|Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bisek et al. (US Patent No. 5,306,306)

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''48'''

|align = "center"|US 20080119708

|align = "center"|3/17/2009

|align = "center"|10/25/2006

|103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 21 -30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 200310050546 to Desai et al in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003101 3061 6 to Steil et al. Regarding claim 21, Desai discloses a method comprising monitoring a data stream associated with an analyte level, wherein a current signal is generated associated with the data stream.

|Claims 27 and 28 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"|'''49'''

|align = "center"|US 20080119702

|align = "center"|3/23/2009

|align = "center"|10/31/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Saidara (US 200510038332).

|1. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saidara in view of Peterka (US 200610004603). 2. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saidara in view of Morrison (US 200610293577).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''50'''

|align = "center"|US 20080108913

|align = "center"|11/7/2008

|align = "center"|11/6/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-8, 10-1 8 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Billing (applicant submitted Foreign Reference WO 200510371 03).

|Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Billing as applied in claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Guan (US 200510046 1 39).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''51'''

|align = "center"|US 20080108910

|align = "center"|12/29/2008

|align = "center"|10/7/2007

|102 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 22-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Deck et al (US 200810082023).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''52'''

|align = "center"|US 20080108906

|align = "center"|12/24/2008

|align = "center"|11/8/2006

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-6, 1 1-1 3, and 18-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Albrecht et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,755,671).

|Claims 7-1 0 and 14-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al.

|Claims 1-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, 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"|'''53'''

|align = "center"|US 20080108884

|align = "center"|3/3/2009

|align = "center"|9/24/2007

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-5, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Smith (US Patent Number 6,980,419 B2).

|N/A

|Claims 1-5, 1 1, 13 and 14 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"|'''54'''

|align = "center"|US 20080108883

|align = "center"|1/8/2009

|align = "center"|11/2/2007

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1-6, and 9-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kiselik (US 7066896). 2. Claims 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shenoy et al. (US 660901 7).

|1. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiselik (US 7066896) in view of Einav et al. (US 2006029361 7). 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiselik modified by Einav as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brown (US 6692449). 3. Claims 14-17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scott (US 61 55993) in view of Brown (US 6692449). 4. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shenoy and Brown as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Scott (US 61 55993).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''55'''

|align = "center"|US 20080103416

|align = "center"|2/4/2009

|align = "center"|12/17/2007

|103 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1-4, 7-1 1, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,916,179 to Sharrock ("Sharrock") in view of US Pat. No. 4,739,211 to Strachan ("Strachan").

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''56'''

|align = "center"|US 20080103402

|align = "center"|3/18/2009

|align = "center"|10/30/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-4, 7-1 6, 18-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Morgan (US 461 0254).

|1. Claims 5, 6, 17, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 461 0254). 2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 461 0254) in view of Tamura (US 200310080712).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''57'''

|align = "center"|US 20080166031

|align = "center"|8/21/2008

|align = "center"|3/14/2008

|101, 102 and 103 rejections

|Claims I , 2 and 23are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims I , 3 and 43 of copending Application No. 10/873,660 in view of Moriyama et a/. (U.S. Publication number 2004/0086163A1)

|Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Moriyama et a/., "Moriyama" (U.S. Publication number 2004/0086163A1)

|Claims 6, 11, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama as applied to claim 1 above in view of (Nonlinear Dynamics Ltd., TotalLab Applications, image analysis software for ID, electrophoresis gels, blots and colonies, www.nonlinear.com website, published 9/21/2004 from IDS).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''58'''

|align = "center"|US 20080161698

|align = "center"|8/28/2008

|align = "center"|1/3/2007

|101, 102 and 103 rejections

|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim language is drawn to method of "determining", "analyzing", and "locating" and have no tangible, useful, or concrete result, and are hence non-statutory.

|Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tearney et al. (U.S. 2003/0028100 Al) hereinafter "Tearney".

|Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney et al. (U.S. 200310028 100 Al) in view of Nordstrom et al. (U.S. 200210177777 Al).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''59'''

|align = "center"|US 20080139899

|align = "center"|4/23/2008

|align = "center"|11/2/2007

|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections

|Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.

|Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. US Patent Number 6,198,394 (hereinafter Jacobsen).

|Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. US Patent Number 6,198,394 (hereinafter Jacobsen) as applied to claim 1 above.

|1. Claim 2 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. 2. 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. 3. Claim 12 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. 4. Claim 18 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"|'''60'''

|align = "center"|US 20070244373

|align = "center"|4/30/2008

|align = "center"|5/2/2006

|101, 102 and 103 rejections

|1. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the 101 rejection

|1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 200310014742 to Lewkowicz et al. 2. Claims 1-6, 8-1 0, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 200410050394 to Jin.

|1. Claims I, 10, I I, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,442,413 to Silver in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 200310014742 to Lewkowicz et al. 2. Claims 7, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-1 0, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,477,406 to Turcott. 3. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewkowicz, as applied to Claims I, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,689,056 to Kilcoyne et al.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''61'''

|align = "center"|US 20080097237

|align = "center"|4/8/2008

|align = "center"|9/29/2006

|103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1-6, 8, 29, 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 200410243207 to Olson et al. ("Olson") in view of US Pat. No. 5,035,247 to Heimann ("Heimann"). 2. Claims I I, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 200410198469 to Bridger et al. ("Bridger") in view of US Pat. No.5,594,638 to lliff ("Illiff<nowiki>’</nowiki>), Olson, and Heimann. 3. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bridger in view of Illiff, Olson, and Heimann as applied to claim 1 1 above, and further in view of US. Pat. No. 6,409,684 to Wilk ("Wilk").

|Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''62'''

|align = "center"|US 20080097196

|align = "center"|6/5/2008

|align = "center"|8/30/2006

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Kalender (US Patent No. 5,301,672). 2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Chenevert et al. (US Patent No. 6,167,293).

|1. Claims 1-6, 10, I I, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalender (US Patent No. 5,301,672) in view of Gelman (US Patent No. 6,337,992). 2. Claims 8, 9, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalender (US Patent No. 5,301,672) in view of Gelman (US Patent No. 6,337,992) as applied to claims 7, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Brown (US Patent No. 5,459,769). 3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heuscher (US Patent No. 5,262,946).

|Claim 19 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"|'''63'''

|align = "center"|US 20080097173

|align = "center"|6/12/2008

|align = "center"|5/30/2007

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1 - 3, 11, 16 - 19, 22, 23, 25 - 27, and 32 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tsuchiya.

|1. Claims 4 - 10, 12 - 15, 24, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya, as applied to claims 1, 3 and 38 above. 2. Claims 20 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya as applied to claims 1 and 32 above, and further in view of Arakaki et al. 3. Claims 21, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya as applied to claims 1 and 34 above, and further in view of Pologe. 4. Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pologe in view of Takatani et al. 5. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya for the reasons given in paragraphs 2 and 4 above.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''64'''

|align = "center"|US 20080091122

|align = "center"|6/30/2008

|align = "center"|11/13/2007

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 50 - 52, 62, 64 66, 68,70,72 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,448,996 to Bellin et al. 2. Claims 47,49 - 52, 62, 64 - 68, 70, 72 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,846,206 to Bader.

|Claims 48 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,846,206 to Bader.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''65'''

|align = "center"|US 20080086060

|align = "center"|8/21/2008

|align = "center"|12/3/2007

|112 rejection

|N/A

|1. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for quaternary amines, does not reasonably provide enablement for "an ion-balance reagent". 2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, 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"|'''66'''

|align = "center"|US 20080086044

|align = "center"|9/25/2008

|align = "center"|3/26/2007

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13-1 5, 17, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,128,519 to Say. 2. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,335,658 to Bedingham.

|1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Say, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13-1 5, 17, 22, and 24-27 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,123,827 to Wong et al. Say lacks allowing a temperature of the reference solution to equilibrate with a temperature of the host. 2. Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Say, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13-1 5, 17, 22, and 24-27 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al. 3. Claims 9-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bedingham, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 22, and 25-27 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al. 4. Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al. in view of US Patent No. 6,123,827 to Wong et al. 5. Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,119,406 to Clemens in view of US Patent No. 6,123,827 to Wong et al. and US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al..

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''67'''

|align = "center"|US 20080082012

|align = "center"|8/26/2008

|align = "center"|9/28/2006

|102 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (2006101 16596)

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''68'''

|align = "center"|US 20080082011

|align = "center"|1/9/2008

|align = "center"|9/14/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1,3 - 15, and 19 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Goodman U.S. Patent No. 6,616,613.

|Claims 2 and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman U.S. Patent No. 6,616,613 in view of Ranta U.S. Patent No. 7,050,798.

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''69'''

|align = "center"|US 20080161708

|align = "center"|9/8/2008

|align = "center"|8/4/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|1.Claims 1-3, 5-7, 22-27, 30-32 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090). 2. Claims 7, 9, 25, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Berger (US Patent 5,560,368). 3. Claims 10-1 3 and 16-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503).

|1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090) in view of Morganroth (US Pub. 20030097077). 2. Claims 8, 28, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090) in view of Millar et al. (Correlation between refractory periods.. .). 3. Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503) in view of Millar et al. (Correlation between refractory periods.. .). 4. Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503) in view of Berger (US Patent 5,560,368).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''70'''

|align = "center"|US 20080154122

|align = "center"|1/10/2008

|align = "center"|12/21/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-2 and 7-1 0, 12, 16-1 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Slager (USPN 5,771,895).

|1. Claims 3, I I, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Walczak et al. (Pub. No. 2006101 551 88). 2. Claims 4-5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Yim et al. (Pub. No. 2002101 36440) and Cohen-Solal (USPN 5,933,518). 3. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Yim and Cohen-Solal as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Kohle (Pub. No. 200410096088).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''71'''

|align = "center"|US 20080154098

|align = "center"|5/19/2008

|align = "center"|12/20/2006

|102 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. US Patent Number 6,569,094 B2.

|N/A

|Claims 7 and 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"|'''72'''

|align = "center"|US 20080132782

|align = "center"|8/20/2008

|align = "center"|1/27/2005

|103 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Uzgris et al. (US 6470,204 Bl) in view of Greenleaf et al. (US 2001/0053384 Al).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''73'''

|align = "center"|US 20080139891

|align = "center"|8/26/2008

|align = "center"|10/25/2006

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker et al. US Patent Number 6,302,844 Bl.

|Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al. US Patent Number 6,302,844 Bl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang 6,758,812 B2

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''74'''

|align = "center"|US 20080114269

|align = "center"|6/24/2008

|align = "center"|10/10/2007

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-6 and 9-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 6,331,893 Bl , hereinafter Brown).

|Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,331,893 Bl , hereinafter Brown).

|N/A

|-

|}

= =

Naveen

171

edits

Changes

Bilski Diagnostic Methods Big Sample Sheet

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools