Appeal No. 2005-1893 Page 6
Application No. 09/418,536
We also find ourselves in agreement with the appellants that claims 1 and 19 are
not obvious from Skelton. In that regard, we find no evidence whatsoever in Skelton
that would have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to simultaneous display on the defibrillator screen of Skelton both
previously recorded ECG data and currently monitored information.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 19, and claims 2 to 12, 14, 18 and 20 to 28 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Skelton is reversed.
Claims 4, 12, 13, 15 and 16
We have reviewed the patent to Rockwell applied in the rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 12 and the patent to Powers applied in the rejection of dependent claims
13, 15 and 16 but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiency of Skelton
discussed above regarding claim 1. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 4, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007