Appeal 2006-1971
Application 10/144,224
1 ISSUE
2 Have Appellants shown that the Examiner has failed to establish that
3 one skilled in the art would have incorporated the teachings and suggestions
4 of the applied prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, has
5 the Examiner erred in holding that the applied prior art would have
6 suggested the claimed combination including a sampling depth of no more
7 than approximately 2mm, and that the separation between the light
8 introduction site and the light collecting site is no more than approximately
9 2mm.
10
11 FINDINGS OF FACT
12 Based upon a preponderance of the evidence we make the following
13 findings of fact.
14 1. Appellants invented a method an apparatus for determining
15 blood parameters and vital signs of a patient. (Specification
16 1).
17 2. The invention provides a method of monitoring a patient that
18 comprises a non-invasive measurement of the hematocrit
19 value or the concentration of hemoglobin coupled with the
20 monitoring of one or more vital signs. The vital signs
21 include cardiac pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. (Specification
22 6).
23 3. Optical probe 116 will sample tissue layers to a depth of
24 approximately 2mm, when the separation between the light
25 introduction fiber 120 and one of the light collection fibers
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013