Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
Claim 1 requires only that “said second electrode patch provides
shielding.” Claim 1 does not further limit the shielding. Nor does claim 1
state the electrode patch must provide shielding against the other sensors on
the ear-emplaceable device. Therefore, Appellants' argument depends on
improperly reading preferred embodiments from the Specification into claim
1.
Moreover, we do not agree that Ohtake fails to meet the shielding
limitation. Ohtake discloses a “bioelectrical signal recording device for
recording an electrical signal from a living body, such as a[n]
electrocardiographic signal” (Ohtake, col. 1, ll. 7-9). Ohtake’s device
“includes a sheet-like base member . . . [that has] a sticking face which
serves to stick the base member on the living body, [and] one or a plurality
of electrodes provided on said face of the base member for picking up an
electrical signal of the living body” (id. at col. 1, ll. 46-52). Ohtake
discloses that “[t]he base 5 is provided with a shielding property for
shielding out electrical noise. . . . For example, the base 5 includes a built-in
conductive film for electrical shielding” (id. at col. 3, ll. 10-14).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill using devices
such as Dotan’s to acquire electrocardiograms from ear and waist electrodes
would have considered it obvious to include shielding in the ear-positioned
electrode patch because Ohtake discloses that it is desirable to shield the
electrodes in such devices from electrical noise. Moreover, because Ohtake
discloses that the shielding is “built-in” to the base of body-attachable
electrode assembly (Ohtake, col. 3, ll. 13-14), we do not agree with
Appellants that Ohtake’s shielding is not part of the electrode patch.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013