Appeal No. 2005-1893 Page 5
Application No. 09/418,536
the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc.,
927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
After reviewing the entire disclosure of Skelton, we find ourselves in agreement
with the appellants that claims 1 and 19 are not anticipated by Skelton. In that regard,
we find no disclosure whatsoever in Skelton of the simultaneous display on the
defibrillator screen of both previously recorded ECG data and currently monitored
information. The examiner's position (answer, pp. 11-12 and 15) that one of the traces
(e.g. wave form 98a) could be current ECG data and another of the traces (e.g. wave
form 98b) could be historical ECG data is pure speculation unsupported by any teaching
or suggestion in Skelton. Skelton teaches only that the three graphical traces (wave
forms 98a-98c; see Figures 4 and 10) are generated from accumulated data and
displayed to a user.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. See In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007