Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 6
Application 07/613,466
at 13; Figs. 8 & 9.) Indeed, Appellants' invention uses5
closed-loop control to match heart rates to stress levels.
(Paper 1 at 13-14; Fig. 10; see also Paper 18 at 21-24.)
Appellants have not identified any parameter other than the
depolarization gradient that might satisfy the requirements
for the claimed measured parameter.
13. We find that the terms "closed loop system", "closed
loop control", and "self-adapt" have readily discernable
meanings in light of the disclosure and that these terms
appear to be used consistently with their meanings in the
references of record. Appellants have not identified any
definition for these terms peculiar to their disclosure.
14. Appellants suggest that a person of ordinary skill
in the pacemaker art had a master's degree in electrical or
mechanical engineering and a basic knowledge of circulatory
anatomy and physiology. (Paper 18 (2d Rev'd. App. Br.) at 8
n.1.) The examiner does not dispute this suggestion and we
find it plausible for the purposes of this appeal.
5 Appellants should note that "exercise" is
consistently misspelled in the figures. (Figs. 8-10 & 14.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007