Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
Appellants argue that Kumar does not teach claim 13’s step of
“transmitting the ECG signal to the Internet using said patient data monitor”
because Kumar “merely teaches the transmission of data from ‘signal
transfer unit 20’ on the user to ‘base station 30;’ it is the base station and not
the patient-worn unit that forwards data over the Internet . . . . The only
alternative disclosed is a radio receiver attached to the user’s computer to
replace the base station” (Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded by this argument. We note that Kumar
discloses that the data from the patient is first transmitted to the base station
30, which in turn transmits the data to the Internet (see, e.g. Kumar, Figure
1). However, as pointed out by the Examiner, this disclosure “does teach
transmitting ECG signals to the internet since that is the ultimate destination
of the signals” (Answer 14, emphasis added). Moreover, Kumar discloses
that a patient may attach a radio receiver “to his or her computer for use in
downloading software and uploading data from/to an Internet server for
connection to a predetermined remote monitoring station connected to a
designated node on the Internet.” (Kumar, col. 38, ll. 26-31, emphasis
added). We therefore do not agree that Kumar fails to meet claim 13’s
Internet transmission limitation.
Appellants note that the Examiner relies on the same motivation
statements with respect to claims 13, 14, 17, and 20 that were made with
respect to claims 1 and 7 (Br. 12). Thus, Appellants argue, the Examiner has
not provided motivation for combining the disclosures of Schulze, Sarbach,
and Dotan to arrive at the invention recited in claims 13, 14, 17, and 20,
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013