Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
made to modify the teachings of Shulze [sic] in order to remotely monitor
ECG of a patient” (id. at 5-6).
Appellants argue that, because Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, and Ohtake
fail to establish the prima facie obviousness of claim 1, claim 3 is also
unobvious over those references, based on its dependency from claim 1, and
Kumar’s failure to disclose or suggest the claimed shielding limitation
(Br. 9-10). We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that Ohtake suggests shielding the electrodes in
ECG devices such as those disclosed by Schulze, Sarbach, and Dotan.
Appellants argue that Kumar does not cure the deficiencies of
Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, and Ohtake because the electrode-containing
sensor band of Kumar’s device is completely separate from the signal
transfer unit, and because “[t]he sensor band transmits data from all the
sensors (not just one of two) and does not disclose the use of electrode
patches as shielding for other sensors” (Br. 9). We are not persuaded by this
argument.
Claim 3 requires the second electrode patch to be connected to the
amplifier by an RF transmitter, i.e. a wireless connection (see Specification
5, ¶ [23]). Claim 3 does not exclude a situation in which data from both
electrodes is wirelessly transmitted to the amplifier. In the instant case,
Kumar discloses a patient-carried device that has “a signal transfer unit 20
[that] receive[s] the vital signs data signals transmitted by [a] sensor band
10. The signal transfer unit 20 is designed to retransmit the received data to
a base station unit 30 from a distance of up to 60 meters” (Kumar, col. 10, ll.
5-9). Thus, one of ordinary skill using an ECG-acquiring device as
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013