Appeal No. 2003-1339 Page 2
Application No. 09/810,813
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method for performing electrotherapy on a
patient. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 21, which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Niemi 4,088,141 May 9, 1978
Lerman 4,771,781 Sep. 20, 1988
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Niemi.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Niemi in view of Lerman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to Paper No.
18 (the Examiner’s Answer) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to Paper No. 17 (the Substitute Brief) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007