Appeal 2006-2232
Application 10/242,188
ANALYSIS
As Rushing discloses that the signal detected is compared to a target
goal of 100, 101, and 110, Rushing discloses the step recited in claim 27 of
comparing the intensity of a returned pulse to a target value. Therefore, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 32.
The problem with which the Appellant is involved is the automatic
control of the gain of a device so that the gain is commensurate with the
intensity of the signal so that the signal may be processed while at the same
time minimizing the affects of noise on the signal processed.
Kovtun too is concerned with automatic adjustment of gain of a
device so that the gain is commensurate with the intensity of the signal.
Kovtun also seeks to minimize the affects of noise or signals not related to
cardiac function. While Kovtun is used in the environment of an ECG
machine, Kovtun nonetheless is concerned with the same problem addressed
by the Appellant. In our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably be expected to look to the Kovtun device when looking for a
solution of how to automatically control the gain so as to get good signals to
process and minimize the affects of noise. Therefore, Kovtun is analogous
art.
As such, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in view
of Rushing and Kovtun. We will also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-
7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-19, 21, 22, 24-26, 29, 34, 37-39 and 43-47 and 49-51
as the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims.
In regard to claims 4, 8, 15, 17, 20, 23, 33 and 48, Appellant argues
that the Examiner has improperly relied on the principle of inherency (Br.
9). However, a review of the Examiner’s Answer reveals that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013