Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
compensation software. The examiner has specifically identified
where the applied prior art teaches all of these elements except
for the first and second signal conditioners connected between
the outputs of the temperature sensor and the pulse sensor and
the input of the microcomputer. The artisan would have
understood, however, that the outputs from the temperature sensor
and the pulse sensor in the applied prior art cannot be applied
directly to a microcomputer without modification of the signal.
Therefore, we find that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of the obviousness of claim 23. Since appellants have
made no persuasive arguments with respect to claim 23 for reasons
discussed above, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 23.
With respect to the dependent claims on appeal,
appellants essentially argue that the examiner made no findings
with respect to these claims and, therefore, the examiner failed
to establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of the
dependent claims. As such, appellants argue that they were under
no duty to respond to the examiner’s rejection of these claims
[brief, pages 18-21]. Although the examiner did not mention each
claim specifically as noted above, the examiner did identify the
features of the dependent claims which were not taught by
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007