Ex parte MCLAUGHLIN et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-2739                                                           
          Application No. 08/210,757                                                   


          pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as being drawn to            
          nonelected species of the invention.                                         
                    The subject matter on appeal is directed to a biosignal            
          electrode device.  Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and                 
          reads as follows:                                                            
                    1.   A biosignal electrode device, comprising:                     
                    a)   a flexible, electrically insulating substrate, and            
                    b)   an electrically conductive layer deposited on a               
          surface of said substrate, and forming thereon an                            
          electrode sensor for contacting a patient's skin, and a                      
          lead for the sensor,                                                         
                    c)   wherein a portion of the substrate bearing the                
          sensor is formed in relief such that said substrate                          
          portion and attendantly the sensor are upstanding from                       
          surrounding substrate.                                                       
                    The references of record relied upon by the examiner in            
          rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and under                  
          35 U.S.C. § 103 are:                                                         
          Howson                   4,082,087                 Apr.  4, 1978             
          Ding et al. (Ding)       5,058,589                 Oct. 22, 1991             

                    Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                
          being anticipated by Ding.                                                   
                    Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as             
          being unpatentable over Ding in view of Howson.                              



                                           2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007