Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
8. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIM 16
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, Kumar, and Birnbaum.
The Examiner cites Birnbaum as disclosing claim 16’s application of
saline to an ECG electrode when the electrode is positioned on a thin
garment, and reasons that one of ordinary skill would have considered it
obvious to “to modify the teachings of Sarbach to provide a saline solution
to the ‘first electrode patch’ 6 of Sarbach's device so as to provide a suitable
conductive path to obtain accurate results” (Answer 8).
Appellants argue that claim 16 is “allowable as depending on
allowable claim 13” (Br. 14). Appellants argue that because Birnbaum’s
electrodes are separate from the Birnbaum’s closest component analogous to
a patient data monitor, Birnbaum does not cure the other references’ failure
to “to teach or fairly suggest the use of an electrode patch on a patient data
monitor surface” (id.).
These arguments are addressed above with respect to claims 4 and 13.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 16.
9. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIM 24
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, Kumar, and Platt.
The Examiner cites Platt as disclosing claim 24’s use of stainless steel
or silver chloride electrodes, and reasons that one of ordinary skill would
have considered it obvious to “to modify Schulze’s or Sarbach’s inventions
to have an ECG electrode formed of material such as stainless steel or silver
22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013