Appeal No. 2004-0388
Application No. 09/749,620
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Owen in view of Tacker
The examiner relies upon Tacker only for a disclosure of a
defibrillator “having an audio signal that varies the frequency,
pitch, or volume, and uses words for the purpose of better
attracting the attention of a user” (office action mailed
February 3, 2003, paper no. 9, page 3), and not for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Owen
as to independent claim 1. Consequently, we reverse the
rejection of dependent claims 6-9, 16 and 22 over Owen in view of
Tacker.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Olson in view of Owen and Tacker
The examiner argues that “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to provide the apparatus of Olson with a real time user triggered
inquiry as, for example, taught by Owen and Tacker in order to
allowing [sic] a user to check the status and operation of the
device whenever the user desires” (answer, page 4). As indicated
by the above discussion of Owen, this reference does not disclose
an audible indicator connected to the defibrillator for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007