Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
“and fails to address obviousness at the time of Appellants’ invention” (id. at
13).4
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have considered it
obvious to combine the teachings of the cited references.
Thus, because claim 13 recites an assembly of desirably combined
prior art elements, and because the combination results in no function other
than what one of ordinary skill would have expected from the prior art’s
disclosure of those elements, we agree with the Examiner that claim 13
would have been obvious under § 103. See KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
(1976)) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious.”).
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 13. Claims
14, 17, and 20 fall with claim 13.
Claims 21-23 recite the same limitations regarding electrode size that
are recited in claims 8-10. In arguing claims 21-23, Appellants repeat the
arguments made regarding claims 8-10 (Br. 13). As discussed above, we do
not find these arguments persuasive. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 21-23.
4 Appellants also argue that the Examiner “fails to address the use of an
ECG electrode as shielding for other sensors” (Br. 13), but because claim 13
does not recite the shielding limitation of claim 1, that argument is irrelevant
to claim 13.
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013