Appeal No. 2004-0896
Application No. 09/751,774 Page 6
323, 326 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788, 1788-1789
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
On this record, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection.
REMAND
We note that appellants refer to prior techniques in the
Background of Related Art section of their specification,
including the need for consultation with multiple clinicians and
the use of techniques, such as fax machines, to communicate data
from an electrophysiology (EPS) study to clinicians at remote
sites (specification, page 4). Prior to final disposition of
this application and if not already investigated, the examiner,
with appellants’ help, should determine if the prior techniques
referred to in the specification represent prior art to
appellants’ claimed invention. If so, the examiner should
determine the full extent of those prior art teachings.
Thereafter, the examiner should consider whether or not those
prior art teachings in combination with Budd taken with any other
known prior art, including Soukal, would have led (provided both
the incentive and a reasonable expectation of success) one of
ordinary skill in the art to transmit, replicate and display
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007