Appeal No. 2004-0388
Application No. 09/749,620
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
appellants’ claimed defibrillator system over Owen. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Owen in view of Olsen
Olsen discloses an external defibrillator which provides an
audible charging indicator tone to indicate when the
defibrillator has built up a charge to defibrillate a patient
with a defibrillation shock (col. 2, lines 46-49), and includes a
battery power status indicator (60) having a plurality of green
indicator lights (62) and a red replacement light (64).1 Also,
if faults are identified during a daily or weekly defibrillator
self-test, an alarm is activated (col. 6, lines 53-55).
Olsen does not remedy the above-discussed deficiency in Owen
as to independent claim 1. We therefore reverse the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 16, 17, 20 and 22 over Owen in view of Olson.
1 “Green indicator lights are arranged with a sufficient
number of lights so that an operator can determine the
proportional amount of remaining battery capacity by looking at
the number of lights illuminated. For example, if indicator 62
includes four lights, illumination of all four green lights
indicates full battery status while illumination of three lights
indicates three-quarter battery status and illumination of two
battery lights indicates one-half battery status, and so on”
(col. 3, lines 29-37).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007