Ex parte BRUCE R. BOWMAN et al. - Page 5

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

          of ordinary skill in the art, including not only the specific               
          teachings, but also the inferences which one of ordinary skill in           
          the art would reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom               
          (see In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)            
          and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA                 
               The primary reference in the rejection is Bowman, which                
          discloses a respiration monitor method in which dual detectors              
          are employed for determining patient breaths while rejecting                
          cardiac artifacts.  As stated in the abstract of Bowman:                    
               The first detector examines a respiration signal at a                  
               first sensitivity for apparent breaths. The second                     
               detector examines at a second sensitivity to determine                 
               if the apparent breath was actually an artifact.                       
          This reference was discussed in the appellants' specification,              
          the comment being made on page 2 that                                       
               the cardiac artifact signal is explicitly sensed and                   
               processed using separate detection circuitry to ensure                 
               that the cardiac artifact is not treated as a                          
               respiration signal (emphasis added).                                   
          The appellants continue on page 2:                                          
               However, even with extensive filtering and shielding                   
               techniques, it is known that problems still exist with                 
               other sensing failures caused by electromagnetic                       
               interference (i.e. EMI) that is strong enough to                       
               interfere with the normal behavior of the monitoring                   
               system (emphasis added).                                               


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007