Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 21
Application No. 08/132,940
the user control has two added adjustors one for setting a
number of packets of energy and another for a preset level
of energy delivered per packet.
The above-noted limitations are not taught or suggested by
Bowers, Ensslin or Rexroth. Therefore, the examiner applied
Auth. Specifically, the examiner determined (answer, p. 6)
that
Auth et al teaches the desirability of controlling the
number of energy pulses administered to a patient. It
would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill
to control the number of pulses delivered, since this is
an [sic, a] recognized way of controlling the energy
delivered to tissue, as taught by Auth et al.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 18-19) that the
specifically claimed circuit "would not have been an obvious
combination." We agree. In fact, even if the references were
combined as set forth by the examiner, the resulting device
would not have the user control as set forth in claims 9 and
14. Specifically, the two added adjustors (i.e., one for
setting a number of packets of energy and the other for a
preset level of energy delivered per packet) recited in claims
9 and 14 are not suggested by the applied prior art. Since all
the limitations of dependent claims 9 and 14 are not suggested
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007