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.
OPINION
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007