Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 25
Application 07/613,466
F. Obviousness
13. We agree with the examiner that Callaghan '900 and
Nappholz can be combined. Callaghan '900 would have motivated
a person having ordinary skill in the art to a closed-loop
control pacemaker using the depolarization gradient as its
rate control parameter. Nappholz would have motivated a
person having ordinary skill in the art to find a way to make
the depolarization gradient self-adapting. It does not
follow, however, that the artisan is more likely than not to
have arrived at the claimed subject matter. We do not find
sufficient evidence of record to support a conclusion of
obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of
claims 28, 30-33, 35-37, 52-57, and 59-61.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-24 and 38-48 under
section 112 as indefinite. The reference-based rejections of
these claims are reversed pro forma.
We reverse the rejection of claims 25-37 and 49-61 under
section 112 as indefinite on the merits.
The rejection of claims 1-61 under section 112 as not
enabled is reversed pro forma.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007