Appeal No. 1997-0915
Application 08/369,853
As to the argument that a sensor with a processing device
is "functionally equivalent to" a "data acquisition pod,"2
Appellants argue (Br18):
However, a sensor which includes a processing device does
not meet the requirements of claim 1, which 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 and
self-contained[."] A sensor processing device included
in a sensor is not independently positionable, because
the sensor must have a specified spatial relationship to
the patient to sense the data.
The issue is whether the "sensors including a processing
device" referred to in Policastro at column 5, lines 53-57,
taken together with the teachings of external sensors in
Sasaki constitute or would have made obvious the claimed "data
acquisition pod." The question is: What limitations in
claim 1 distinguish the "sensors" in Policastro and Sasaki
from the claimed "data acquisition pod"? Before beginning, we
find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known
that the term "sensor" can refer to the actual sensor element
as well as to the assembly containing the sensor and would
We do not favor the Examiner's use of the phrase2
"functionally equivalent to" because it seems to imply that
only the function is given any weight.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007