Appeal No. 1998-2825
Application No. 08/595,282
of Crossing and Brink, it is our opinion that Brink, at best,
would have suggested replacing Crossing’s electronic circuit
and software for determining the upper and lower heart rate
limits based on a general fitness level and age with a simple
keypad for manually setting the upper and lower limits. Like
appellant, we find no disclosure in Brink which would have
motivated an artisan to add to Crossing’s disclosed apparatus
a means for adjusting the upper and lower heart rate limits
after being initially set electronically in response to the
user’s age.
Since all the limitations of claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 are not
taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Crossing and
Brink, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
standing
§ 103 rejection of claims 2, 4, 6 and 8.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Crossing is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §
-13-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007