Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
references’ failure to “to teach or fairly suggest either i) that the electrode
patch itself acts as the shield for other sensors, or ii) the use of an electrode
patch on a patient data monitor surface” (id.).
These arguments are addressed above. We note, however, that the
Examiner did not mention Ohtake when rejecting claim 11. We therefore
designate the rejection of claim 11 over Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, Ohtake,
and Platt a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
7. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 13-15, 17-23, 25, AND 26
Claims 13-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Schulze, Sarbach, Dotan, and Kumar.
The Examiner relies on Schulze, Sarbach, and Dotan for the
disclosures applied to claims 1 and 7, but concedes that those references “do
not teach transmitting ECG data to the Internet” (Answer 7). To meet that
limitation the Examiner cites Kumar as disclosing “wirelessly transmitting
ECG data to the Internet [from] a signal transfer unit (‘data monitor’) 20
positioned at the [waist] and wirelessly connected to electrodes 10 attached
to the body” (id.). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill would
have considered it obvious “to modify the teachings of Shulze in order to
remotely monitor ECG of a patient” (id.).
Appellants argue that none of the cited references discloses claim 13’s
step of “providing a first electrode patch on a surface of said patient data
monitor” (Br. 11-12). Appellants urge that by interpreting “patient data
monitor” to include the belt that carries the electrical components of the
device, the Examiner interprets the term too broadly (Reply Br. 5).
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013