Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, both
Dotan and Sarbach disclose devices for monitoring patients’ ECG data, the
devices having belts with electrodes attached to them (Dotan, col. 2, ll. 31-
33, see also Figure 1; Sarbach, col. 2, l. 67, through col. 3, l. 2). As also
discussed above, when the recitation “surface of said patient data monitor” is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, that
language encompasses the surface of any part of the device, including the
belts of Dotan and Sarbach.
Appellants argue that because Sarbach teaches transmitting the ECG
data to a wristwatch display, and because Dotan teaches transmission to an
earphone to provide the user with an announcement, those references teach
away from transmitting the data to the Internet as recited in claim 13 (Br.
12).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F. 3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
We agree that Sarbach and Dotan teach the desirability of transmitting
ECG data to the patient wearing the devices. However, we do not see, and
Appellants do not point to, any disclosure in either Sarbach or Dotan
suggesting that it would be undesirable to also transmit that data to an
Internet monitor, as disclosed by Kumar. We therefore do not agree that
Sarbach and Dotan teach away from transmitting ECG data to the Internet,
as recited in claim 13.
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013