Appeal No. 1998-0061
Application No. 08/364,101
patentable separately of the claims from which they depend.
In short, appellants have failed to argue the patentability of
these dependent claims with any reasonable specificity. They
therefore fall with their respective parent claims. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987). In any event, these dependent claims are considered to
be unpatentable over the applied references for the reasons
stated supra as well as the reasons stated by the examiner.
With regard to dependent claims 9 and 19, Salem suggests
the concept of providing for the wireless transmission of
heart and respiration rate signals from a patient to a remote
monitor. The advantages of such a wireless transmission are
well known and self-evident in that it eliminates the need for
a cable or other physical connection as well as permitting
virtually unrestrained mobility of the patient with respect to
the remote monitor. These advantages would have been ample
motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for
the wireless transmission of the heart and respiration rate
signals in Fraden’s system. Accordingly, we will also sustain
the § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 19.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007