Appeal 2007-3787
Reexamination 90/006,642
Patent 4,944,298
1 D Findings of Fact (FF. ¶ No.)
2 1. With regard to the scope and content of the prior art and
3 differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, nothing appears
4 to be in dispute between the Applicant and the Examiner who differ merely
5 in the ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness to be drawn including
6 whether Berkovits qualifies as “teaching against” the claimed invention.
7 2. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art
8 references applied by the Examiner.
9 3. In the underlying reexamination proceeding, the patentability of
10 claims 10, 13, 19, 20, 21/10, 22/10, 23/10, 27/19,20, and 28/19,20 has been
11 confirmed.
12 4. Claims 6, 14, and 17 are the only independent claims on appeal.
13 5 Independent claim 17 reads as follows:
14 17. A method of operating a dual chamber
15 programmable pacemaker, said pacemaker being capable of
16 operating in a variety of modes of operation and being initially
17 programmed to operate in an atrial rate based mode of
18 operation, said pacemaker comprising means for sensing
19 cardiac activity in the atrial and the ventricular chambers of a
20 heart, and means for selectively providing a stimulating pulse to
21 either chamber of the heart at prescribed times and under
22 prescribed conditions, the method comprising the steps of:
23
24 (a) sensing when the atrial rate exceeds a first rate
25 threshold;
26
27 (b) providing a stimulating pulse to a selected chamber of
28 the heart at a maximum upper rate in the event the atrial rate
29 sensed in step (a) exceeds said first rate threshold;
30
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013