Appeal 2006-3319
Application 10/366,585
The rejection based on Cohn in view of Bardy
Bardy is directed to automated patient care and, in particular, to a
system and method for diagnosing and monitoring the onset, progression,
regression, and status quo of myocardial ischemia using an automated
information collection and analysis patient care system (Bardy ¶¶ 2 and 9).
According to Bardy, preferably, the patient is a recipient of an implantable
medical device, such as a therapeutic device, with a set of leads extending
into the heart and electrodes implanted throughout the cardiopulmonary
system (Bardy ¶ 31). Examples of information that can be collected include
cardiac injury chemical tests, serum creatinine kinase, serum troponin,
myocardial blood flow, and coronary sinus lactate production (Bardy ¶ 36).
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use procedures to test for specific chemical
markers and monitor for myocardial ischemia as taught by Bardy in the
method of Cohn (Answer 6-7). Appellants contend Bardy provides no
suggestion to apply the ischemia detection system in a method for
implanting a mitral valve therapy device and that the Examiner has not
presented any evidence that one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to combine a system and method for diagnosing and monitoring
myocardial ischemia for use in automated patient care with a method and
apparatus for reducing myocardial regurgitation (Appeal Br. 11).
Accordingly, the issue presented is whether it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Cohn and Bardy as proposed by the Examiner.
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013