Appeal 2007-1451
Application 09/970,146
1 device is actually configured to transmit and receive those signals, since such
2 transmission must have some target, such as a medical measuring device. Maseda
3 does not appear to show an example of an electrode used for such measurement,
4 and therefore it is hardly surprising that Maseda fails to show any configuration to
5 transmit and receive such signals (FF07). Thus, we must agree with the
6 Appellants that Maseda fails to show at least one electrode coupled with the device
7 body, where the at least one electrode is configured to transmit and receive
8 electrical signals to and from tissue.
9 Claims 9-10, 12-14, 16, 21-23, 26, 28-29, 33, and 58-69 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
10 § 103(a) as obvious over Lieber and Maseda.
11 In contrast with the novelty rejection, the Appellants do not contend that any
12 subject matter is missing from the combined teachings of Lieber and Maseda (FF
13 13), but only contend that that combining Maseda with Lieber would
14 impermissibly change the operation of Lieber, that there is no objective reason to
15 combine Maseda with Lieber, and that the rejection fails to consider the claims as a
16 whole.
17 We first note that Lieber does indeed show the sole element that was lacking in
18 Maseda for claim 1, i.e. the electrode (FF 10). We next note that although Lieber’s
19 device does provide navigation by a different method than Maseda, this method of
20 navigation occurs in areas of heavy blood flow, such as in a cardiac chamber (FF
21 12), and Lieber does not state or even suggest that a balloon embodiment is
22 required for Lieber’s device to carry an electrode, or that it would be any less
23 desirable to carry an electrode if an additional mechanism for positioning were
24 provided as well.
25
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013