Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
and “a pulse oximetry sensor for measuring oxygen saturation and heart
rate” (id. at col. 4, ll. 3-4). Thus, one of ordinary skill acquiring an ECG by
Dotan’s methods would have reasoned, from Schulze’s teachings, that it was
desirable to acquire additional physiological data from a patient by adding
sensors to Dotan’s ear-mounted ECG electrode.
Sarbach discloses a similar device that has belt-mounted ECG sensors
“directly connected to [an] autonomous signal processing device . . . , which
is also fixed onto the belt” (Sarbach, col. 2, l. 67, through col. 3, l. 2). Each
of the sensors is “connected to an amplifier” in the signal processing device
(id. at col. 3, ll. 49-55), which wirelessly transmits the acquired and
processed data to a “display means” which may be a digital wristwatch (id.
at col. 3, ll. 8-35). We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
would have reasoned from Sarbach’s disclosure that connecting the
electrodes of Dotan’s device to an electrocardiogram amplifier would have
allowed transmission of the ECG signal. Moreover, as discussed above,
Ohtake discloses that it is desirable for ECG electrodes to have shielding.
Therefore, because claim 1 recites an assembly of desirably combined
prior art elements, and because the combination results in no function other
than what one of ordinary skill would have expected from the prior art’s
disclosure of those elements, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would
have been obvious under § 103. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 5, and 7 fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that claims 8 and 10 are separately patentable from
claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 because the Examiner’s argument regarding the
obviousness of the claimed electrode size “is unsupported and uses circular
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013