Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
disclosed by Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, and Ohtake would have reasoned
from Kumar that it would be suitable to wirelessly transmit the ECG data
from the electrodes to an amplifier also worn by the patient.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s statement of rejection “is clearly
insufficient since Appellants submit that the Office Action has failed to state
what modification would be obvious” (Br. 10).
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner states that,
based on Kumar’s teachings, one of ordinary skill would have considered it
obvious “to modify the teachings of Shulze in order to remotely monitor
ECG of a patient” (Answer 5). Thus, the Examiner clearly infers that the
modification of Schulze would be to apply Kumar’s wireless connection
system to Schulze’s ECG data acquisition device.
Appellants argue that while the Examiner’s rejection “does not
explicitly mention Ohtake, because Ohtake was applied against claim 1, it is
necessary for any rejection of a claim that depends on claim 1 and relies
upon the previous grounds of rejection” (Br. 10).
We agree that Ohtake is required to meet all of the limitations in claim
1, and because the Examiner did not mention Ohtake when rejecting claim 3,
we designate the above-discussed rejection of claim 3 over Schulze,
Sarbach, Dotan, Ohtake, and Kumar a new ground of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013