Appeal No. 2003-1339 Page 5
Application No. 09/810,813
the output impedance2 exceeds a predetermined threshold (column 3, line 21 et seq.).
From our perspective, impedance constitutes a “parameter related to energy suppled to
the patient,” as is required by the claim, and we agree with the examiner that the
language recited in claim 21 therefore reads on the Niemi method and the reference
anticipates the claimed subject matter. We further point out that claim 21 is cast in
comprising format, which means that it is not limited only to the subject matter recited
therein.3 This being the case, the fact that a reference measures more than one
parameter would not, in and of itself, cause claim 21 to be unreadable thereon.
The rejection of claim 21 is sustained, as is the like rejection of claim 22, which
the appellants have chosen to group with claim 21 (Substitute Brief, page 4).
The Rejection Under Section 103
Claims 23 and 24, which depend from claim 22, stand rejected as being obvious
in view of the combined teachings of Niemi and Lerman. Since the appellants have
chosen to group all of the claims together (Substitute Brief, page 4), claims 23 and 24
fall with claims 21 and 22, and the rejection is sustained on this basis.
CONCLUSION
2The common applicable definition of “impedance” is the apparent opposition in an electrical
circuit to the flow of alternating current that is analogous to the actual electrical resistance to a direct
current and that is the ratio of effective electromotive force to the effective current. See, for example,
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 581.
3See In re Hunter, 288 F.2d 930, 932, 129 USPQ 225, 226 (CCPA 1961).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007