Appeal No. 2004-0388
Application No. 09/749,620
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The portion of Owen relied upon by the examiner discloses an
external defibrillator having a response button which, to confirm
patient consciousness or lack thereof, is pushed in response to a
“please respond” verbal message (col. 20, lines 64-66). The
response button terminates a current defibrillation and, in some
embodiments, disarms the defibrillator (col. 20, lines 54-58).
The defibrillator confirms, by issuing both audio and visual
messages, that the response button has been pushed (col. 20,
lines 62-64).
The examiner argues that “[i]ndicating that all
defibrillations are cancelled is providing an audible indication
of the functional status of the defibrillator as claimed, i.e.
that the defibrillator is now in an inactive state” (answer,
page 4). What the appellant’s claim 1 requires, however, is a
system capable of indicating a functional status of the
defibrillator in response to a real-time user-triggered inquiry.
Owen’s system does not provide such an inquiry, and Owen’s
response button merely shuts off the defibrillator. The status
which pushing Owen’s response button makes known is the status
after the response button has been pushed, not a status to which
an inquiry is directed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007