Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
chloride compound as disclosed by Platt et al in order to improve accuracy
of the ECG signal.” (Answer 8-9).
Appellants argue that claim 24 is “allowable as depending on
allowable claim 20” (Br. 14). Appellants argue that because Platt’s
electrodes are separate from the Platt’s closest component analogous to a
patient data monitor, Platt 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 11 and
20. We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 24.
SUMMARY
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal. We designate the
affirmances with respect to claims 3, 4, and 11 only as new grounds of
rejection.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 CFR § 41.52(a)(1) provides
that “Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months
from the date of the original decision of the Board.”
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection(s) of one or more
claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR §
41.50(b) provides: “A new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph
shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
23
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013