Appeal No. 1997-1479
Application No. 08/418,579
We remand this application to the examiner to address the
following matters.
1. Considering 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, the examiner should ascertain and specify what
structure of the disclosed automatic defibrillator simulator
and method corresponds to each claim limitation, e.g., what is
the means for enabling an instructor to provide a different
alternative sequence? There is no express antecedent basis
for “said sequence” (claims 15 and 16, line 9).
2. Considering the acknowledged prior art specified on
page 2 of appellants’ specification (for example, U.S. Patent
No. 5,137,458) which reflects the knowledge, prior to
appellants’ invention, of a defibrillation training system
(simulator) wherein a pulse is discharged within a
defibrillator/monitor rather than being actually applied to a
manikin, and the interactive trainer/prompter device of the
reasonably pertinent Parker patent of record, recognized
(column 2, lines 59 through 64) for employment in training or
prompting of skills, other than CPR, which might be critical,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007