Appeal No. 2004-0388
Application No. 09/749,620
generating an audible indication of a functional status of the
defibrillator in response to a real-time user-triggered inquiry.
Such an audible indicator is disclosed by Tacker (col. 5,
lines 21-25; col. 6, lines 58-64). However, the examiner has not
addressed the characteristics of the defibrillators of Olson and
Tacker and explained why, in view of these characteristics, the
references themselves would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to use Tacker’s audible indicator with Olson’s defibrillator.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection over Olson in view
of Owen and Tacker.
New ground of rejection
Claims 1, 7, 10-14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tacker.
Claims 1 and 7: Tacker discloses an implantable
defibrillator having a portable communication device (110) which
can transmit real-time, user-triggered functional status request
commands to the defibrillator and which can play a prestored,
appropriate audible voice message in response to functional
status information received from the defibrillator (col. 5,
lines 21-25; col. 6, lines 58-64). The appellant argues that
Tacker’s portable communication device is not connected to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007