Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to modify the
blood flow sensor of Lapsley to include an oxygen sensor as
claimed [brief, pages 17-21]. The examiner responds that oxygen
detectors were well known in the art and that Lapsley inherently
teaches detecting oxygen in the blood flow [answer, pages 19-20].
Appellants respond that the examiner has provided no objective
evidence to support the addition of a pulse oximeter to the
applied prior art [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 5
and 7. The examiner has provided no evidence to support the
proposed modification of the applied prior art to include an
oxygen sensing mechanism. The fact that oxygen sensing
mechanisms were known is irrelevant. There is no evidence on
this record that an oxygen sensing mechanism can detect whether
an input is from a living person. The examiner’s position that
Lapsley inherently detects oxygen is without merit. The record
in this case totally fails to support the examiner’s findings
with respect to claims 5 and 7.
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007