Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
In the instant case, the Examiner does not point to any specific
teaching in the cited references regarding the size of the electrode patches
used to acquire ECG data. However, we agree with the Examiner that one
of ordinary skill, being a person of ordinary creativity, would have inferred
that using electrodes to acquire ECG data according to the methods in the
cited references would require the electrodes to be large enough to sense the
relevant electrical impulses when placed on the skin. We therefore also
agree that selecting electrode sizes suitable for acquiring ECG data, as
recited in claims 8-10, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at
the time the invention was made, and affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of those claims.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIM 3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, Ohtake,1 and Kumar.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein said second patch is
connected to said electrocardiogram amplifier using an RF transmitter.” The
Examiner cites Kumar as teaching “a signal transfer unit (‘data monitor’) 20
positioned at the [waist] and wirelessly connected to electrodes 10 attached
to the body” (Answer 5). The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
1 The Examiner, apparently inadvertently, did not list Ohtake among the
references supporting the rejection of claim 3. However, because claim 3
depends from claim 1, claim 3 requires the ear-emplaceable electrode to
have shielding. As discussed above, Ohtake discloses the desirability of
shielding on ECG electrodes. We therefore apply Ohtake along with the
other references cited by the Examiner to meet the shielding limitation.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013