Ex parte BRUCE R. BOWMAN et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 96-0935                                                          
          Application 08/157,737                                                      

                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 10, 11, 13/10, 13/11, 14/13/10 and 14/13/11 stand               
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman             
          in view of Brownlee and Howson.                                             
               The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.                   
               The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in             
          the Brief and the Reply Brief.                                              
               The objective of the appellants' invention is to provide a             
          device for monitoring the respiration of a patient, which                   
          provides protection against the likelihood that a component                 
          failure or non-physiologically induced electromagnetic                      
          interference (EMI) generated false signals will be mistakenly               
          assumed to be respiration signals from the patient being                    
          monitored.  In essence, the method recited in the independent               
          claim before us comprises monitoring the respiration of the                 
          patient and responding to the detection of irregular respiration            
          by giving an alarm, and sensing the presence of EMI and providing           
          a second alarm upon such occurrence.                                        
               The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and                    
          therefore we have evaluated the rejection on the basis of the               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007