Appeal 2007-3787
Reexamination 90/006,642
Patent 4,944,298
1 teachings from separate references, or the lack thereof, from the perspective
2 of one with ordinary skill.
3 The following paragraph from the Applicant’s brief provides a
4 summary of the key features of the claimed invention (Br. 10:18-24):
5 Thus, each of the claims on appeal includes a limitation
6 relating to the use of a physiological sensor to control the
7 pacing rate during the alternate mode of operation of the
8 pacemaker. Additionally, each of the claims on appeal involves
9 two thresholds used in atrial based pacing, wherein (1) a
10 chamber is paced at a maximum upper rate in the event that the
11 atrial rate sensed exceeds the first threshold (or maximum
12 tracking rate, in claim 6), and wherein (2) a mode switching to
13 an alternate mode occurs if the atrial rate sensed exceeds the
14 second threshold.
15
16 With regard to independent claims 6, 14, and 17, the Examiner
17 determined and the Applicant does not dispute that each of Fearnot
18 and Nappholz discloses all of the claimed features except use of a
19 physiological sensor to control or modify the pacing function during
20 the switched mode of operation initiated when the sensed atrial rate
21 exceeds a second threshold. The alleged error in the rejection based
22 on Fearnot is the Examiner’s statement (Final Office Action 3:19-24):
23 It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
24 art at the time the invention was made to modify the mode
25 switching pacer as taught by Fearnot, with a physiological
26 sensor modifying the pacing during the mode switched pacing
27 since it was known in the art that mode switching pacers use a
28 physiological sensor to modify the pacing during the mode
29 switched pacing to provide effective stimulation of the patient
30 to match the patients[’] physiological need.”
31
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013