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
1968)).
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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007