Appeal No. 1997-0915
Application 08/369,853
the system disclosed by Policastro with the motivation of
providing flexibility to [a] user in terms of how to
attach various types and/or combinations of sensors (e.g,
[sic] both external and co-located) to a central portable
monitoring device, thereby collecting a variety of
intended digital data . . . . And although elements 7,
8, and 9 of Sasaki refer specifically to a sensor unit,
and not to a data collection pod, per se, it is
respectfully submitted that it is [sic, was] well known
in the art that sensors can come in at least two types;
namely, with a processing device or without a processing
device (see Policastro; col. 5, lines 53-57). Thus, a
sensor processing device is considered to be functionally
equivalent to Applicant's data collection pod.
See also EA13 (referring to Policastro, col. 5, lines 53-57):
"Thus, a sensor with a processing device is considered to be
functionally equivalent to Applicant's data collection pod in
that the processing device associated with the sensor
inherently collects and processes data obtained through the
sensor."
Appellants argue (Br14):
The Examiner has failed to distinguish between
"external sensors" as described by Sasaki and a data
acquisition pod as specified by claim 1. Applicant does
not claim independently positionable, non co-located
sensors. Applicant's claim 1 requires a data acquisition
pod for collecting patient data from a sensor,
conditioning the patient data, and transmitting the
conditioned patient data to the portable monitor, wherein
the pod is "independently positionable, self-contained,
and not co-located with the portable monitor during said
patient monitoring."
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007