Appeal No. 2003-1339 Page 3
Application No. 09/810,813
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 21
In an electrotherapy apparatus including an energy source and a
controller, a method for performing electrotherapy on a patient comprising:
coupling the energy source to the patient;
measuring a first parameter related to energy supplied to the
patient;
performing an operation upon the first parameter using the
controller; and
decoupling the energy source from the patient based upon the
operation.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected as being anticipated by Niemi. The examiner
points out on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer where each of the method steps recited in
claim 21 is found in Niemi. The only argument set forth by the appellants is that in their
invention a first parameter, which may be voltage or current, is measured and operated
upon, and that in contrast to this Niemi teaches that the stimulator is turned off by two
parameters (Substitute Brief, page 5).
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to the matter of
anticipation is as follows: Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007