Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
5. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIM 4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, Ohtake,2 and Birnbaum.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising
providing saline solution to said first electrode patch when positioned
adjacent a thin garment.” The Examiner cites Birnbaum as teaching that
limitation, and concludes that one of ordinary skill would have considered it
obvious “to modify the teachings of Sarbach to provide a saline solution to
the ‘first electrode patch’ 6 of Sarbach’s device so as to provide a suitable
conductive path to obtain accurate results” (Answer 6).
We agree that one of ordinary skill viewing the teachings of Schulze,
Sarbach, Dotan, Ohtake, and Birnbaum would have considered it desirable
to provide a saline solution to a waist-positioned ECG electrode patch when
the patch is worn adjacent to a thin garment. As discussed above, Schulze,
Sarbach, Dotan, and Ohtake suggest the process of claim 1. Birnbaum
discloses a “telemetric transmitter unit comprising electrodes for placement
against the body of a person wearing the telemetric transmitter unit for
detecting heartbeat signals of said person” (Birnbaum, abstract). Birnbaum
discloses that providing saline to an electrode applied to the shirt of a patient
“provide[s] a conductive path for the heart beat signals between the skin of
the wearer and the electrode through the shirt, and ensure[s] immediate and
correct operation of the pulse measuring device even if the user has strapped
the unit over his or her shirt” (id. at col. 3, ll. 31-35).
2 We again include Ohtake to meet claim 1’s shielding limitation.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013