Ex Parte Powers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

11721549 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DANIEL J. POWERS
__________

Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses an automatic external defibrillator (AED)
unit “which can be switched to a pediatric rescue protocol upon insertion of
a simple key-like device” (Spec. 2:31–34). The Specification discloses that
the “key-like device is separate from the AED and requires only insertion to
change the mode of the AED. When inserted into the AED unit, a pediatric
rescue protocol is executed by the AED” (id. at 2:34–3:3).
Claims 1 and 12 are representative of the claims on appeal, and read
as follows:
1. An automatic external defibrillator (AED) system for
use with either adult or pediatric patients comprising:
an AED unit including circuitry for delivering a
defibrillating shock, the AED unit including a receptacle and
being selectively operable for executing an adult rescue
protocol or a pediatric rescue protocol;
an electrode pad that is suitable for use with either adult
or pediatric patients and which is removably connected to the
AED unit; and
a device separate from the AED unit and the electrode
pad which, when connected to the AED unit receptacle, causes
the AED unit to execute the pediatric rescue protocol.

12. A method for selectively operating an automatic
external defibrillator (AED) unit which is operable by execution
of an adult rescue protocol or a pediatric rescue protocol as a
pediatric AED system comprising:
connecting an electrode pad that is suitable for use with
either adult or pediatric patients to the AED unit;
connecting a device separate from the electrode pad to
the AED unit;
sensing the connection of the device to the AED unit; and
responding to the sensing of the connection of the device
by executing the pediatric rescue protocol.
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

3

The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
I. Claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view
of Olson2 (Ans. 4–5);
II. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Olson and Picardo3 (Ans. 5–6);
III. Claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Olson and Nova4 (Ans. 6); and
IV. Claims 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Olson and Snyder5 (Ans. 6–7).
I.
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 12–16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Olson (Ans. 4–5) (Rejection I). We
focus our analysis on claim 1.
The issues presented are: Has the Examiner established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Olson discloses an AED system
comprising an AED unit having a receptacle, which is operable to execute
either an adult or a pediatric rescue protocol, and “an electrode pad that is
suitable for use with either adult or pediatric patients and which is
removably connected to the AED unit,” wherein the AED system further
comprises “a device separate from the AED unit and the electrode pad

2 Olson et al., US 6,125,298, issued Sept. 26, 2000.
3 Picardo et al., US 6,556,864 B1, issued Apr. 29, 2003.
4 Nova et al., US 2003/017198 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2003.
5 Snyder et al., US 6,356,785 B1, issued Mar. 12, 2002.
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

4
which, when connected to the AED unit receptacle, causes the AED unit to
execute the pediatric rescue protocol,” as required by claim 1?
Findings of Fact
FF1. The Examiner finds that “Olson discloses an automatic external
defibrillator (AED) system for use with either adult or pediatric patients”
(Ans. 4 (citing Olson at col. 2, ll. 1–9 and col. 11, ll. 21–43)).
FF2. The Examiner finds that the Olson “AED unit 10 includes
circuitry for delivering a shock using an adult or a pediatric rescue protocol
. . . as well as a receptacle/aperture 30” (id. (citing Olson at col. 2, ll. 1–9
and col. 11, ll. 21–43), and Figs. 2a and 2b)).
FF3. The Examiner finds that Olson discloses that “[s]eparate
pediatric electrode pads 300 are releasably connected to the AED unit” (id.).
FF4. The Examiner finds that the Olson system
includes a device 304 (considered a ‘pedi-key[’] by the
Examiner) that is separate from and releasably mated to
electrode pads 50A and 50B which, when connected to the
AED unit receptacle/aperture 30, causes the AED unit to
execute the pediatric protocol so that a defibrillating shock may
be delivered at a level appropriate for a pediatric patient.

(Id. at 4–5 (citing Olson at col. 8, l. 64–col. 9, l. 8, col. 11, ll. 21–31, and
Fig. 8).)
FF5. Olson discloses that “there is a need in the industry for AEDs
adapted to deliver therapy to pediatric patients” (Olson, col. 1, ll. 60–61).
FF6. Olson discloses that “existing AEDs that are designed to deliver
therapy to adult proportioned persons” are adapted for use with smaller
individuals” (id. at col. 2, ll. 1–2).
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

5
FF7. Olson discloses that an
energy reducer is electrically connected to at least two
electrodes such that a portion of an adult-sized energy charge
delivered to the electrodes for delivery to a patient is shunted
from the electrodes. A lesser, scaled down energy charge
appropriate to a pediatric patient is then delivered to the patient.

(Id. at col. 2, ll. 4–9.)

FF8. Figure 8 of Olson is shown below:

Figure 8 shows “a block diagram illustrating a[n] . . . embodiment of the
pediatric defibrillation set 300” (id. at col. 8, ll. 64–65).
FF9. Olson discloses:
Electrodes 50A, 50B are electrically connected to connector 58.
Connector 5[8] is releasably mated with connector 310 of
energy reducer 304. Energy reducer 304 is electrically
connected to connector 32 by connecting wires 308A, 308B.
Connector 32 is releasably mated with connector 30 of AED 10.
(Id. at col. 8, l. 64–col. 9, l. 3.)
FF10. Olson discloses that “when the electrode set 300 is utilized, a
normal adult energy level is delivered by AED 10. When the shock is
delivered, the energy reducer 304 reduces the energy delivered by AED 10
to the electrodes 50A, 50B to a level appropriate for a pediatric patient” (id.
at col. 11, ll. 21–25).
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

6
FF11. Olson discloses that “[i]n the embodiment shown in FIG. 8, a
portion of the shock energy is delivered to shunt resistor 320, the remainder
of the shock energy is delivered to the patient” (id. at col. 11, ll. 25–28).
FF12. Olson discloses that “[p]referably, four sets of electrodes 50A,
50B are supplied with the AED 10 . . . The first set of electrodes is adult
electrodes 50A, 50B . . . which have no shunt resistor 320 whatsoever” (id.
at col. 9, ll. 19–24).
FF13. Olson discloses that a
further three pairs of pediatric electrode systems 300 are
supplied with the AED 10. There is preferably one electrode
pair for patients who are 0 to 10 kilograms. There is another set
of electrodes 50A, 50B . . . that is for patients who are 10 to 20
kilograms in weight. And, there is a pair of electrodes 50A,
50B for patients who are 20 to 40 kilograms. Each of those
pediatric electrodes 50A, 50B of pediatric electrode set 300 has
a shunt 304 built into the wires 308A, 308B to reduce the
energy to the electrodes 50A, 50B.

(Id. at col. 9, ll. 25–34.)
FF14. Olson discloses that, in a further embodiment,
[e]lectrode set 400 has means of coding . . . that can be read by
the processor 74 of the AED 10 when the electrode set 400 is
plugged into the connector 30 of the AED 10. When the
processor 74 detects the special pediatric electrode set 400, the
processor 74 changes certain parameters of the detection
algorithm to make it more suited to detecting heart rhythms of a
pediatric patient by means of the electrodes 402, 404 . . .
Additionally, the processor 74 may select a pediatric dosage of
electricity for the therapeutic shock that is reduced as compared
to the above adult dosage.

(Id. at col. 9, l. 25–col. 10, l. 3.)
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

7
FF15. The Examiner finds that the “delivery of reduced energy is
considered the ‘pediatric rescue protocol’” (Ans. 5).
FF16. The Examiner finds that “the claims do not require the
electrode pad and the separate device to be inserted into separate receptacles.
They can be connected to the same receptacle based on the current claim
language” (id.).
Analysis
Appellant argues that Olson does not discloses a defibrillator system
that comprises an “an electrode pad that is suitable for use with either adult
or pediatric patients,” as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 7–9). Appellant
argues that Olson’s “electrode pad set has an in-line energy attenuator that
the adult electrode pad set does not . . . [which] attenuates the energy
delivered by the AED from about 150 Joules energy to a lower pediatric
level of about 50 Joules” (id. at 7–8). Appellant argues that, “[w]ith the
attenuator, the pediatric electrode pad is incapable of delivering the full dose
of adult energy” and is not suitable for use with an adult patient (id. at 8).
The Examiner responds that “there are no limitations that clarify
exactly what makes an electrode ‘suitable.’ Since the electrodes 300 can be
attached to an adult or a child and deliver current, the electrodes are
considered suitable for both types of patients” (Ans. 8). The Examiner
reasons that there are “adults who weigh around 40 kilograms, i.e., 88
pounds, which electrodes 300 are designed for” (id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that, because there are both
adults and pediatric patients that weight 40 kilograms, a pair of electrodes
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

8
that is suitable for use for patients that weigh 40 kilograms would be
considered suitable for use for both adult and pediatric patients.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning that there are adults
who weigh around 40 kilograms is in error because Olson discloses that
“adults and pediatric patients differ in ways beyond mere weight. For
example, Olson et al. teach that for pediatric patients, the user should change
the ECG detection algorithm and the voice prompts for delivery” (App. Br. 8
(citing Olson at col. 9, ll. 59–67 (FF14))).
That argument is not persuasive. The use of the transition phrase
“comprising” by the defibrillator system of claim 1 does not exclude
additional elements beyond those specifically set forth by the claim. As
such, the fact that further enhancements to an AED system could be made to
adapt the system for pediatric use is not contrary to the basis for the
anticipation rejection set forth by the Examiner.
Appellant argues that Olson does not disclose “a device separate from
the AED unit and the electrode pad which . . . causes the AED unit to
execute the pediatric rescue protocol” when connected to the AED unit, as
required by claim 1 (App. Br. 10–11). Appellant argues that, in every Olson
embodiment, “energy reducer 304 is shown connected to electrode pads
50A/50B in order for the AED unit to execute a pediatric rescue protocol”
(id. at 10). Appellant argues that “all but one of the Olson et al.
embodiments show that the energy reducer is inseparable from the electrode
pads set” (id.). Appellant argues that, “because energy reducer 304 must be
connected to the pads to operate, the device is not separate from the
electrode pads” (id.).
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

9
The Examiner responds that the “device 304 may be separated from
the pads and the AED by connectors 310, 58, 30 and 32. If the devices can
be separated, they are, by definition, separate devices” (Ans. 8).
We conclude that the Examiner has the better position. During
prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech.
Ctr, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose of patent
examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, it is during
prosecution that applicants have “the opportunity to amend the claims to
obtain more precise claim coverage.” Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364. Here,
Appellant does not dispute that Olson discloses at least one embodiment
where the energy reducer is separable from the electrode pad set.
Appellant’s argument that the device is not separate from the electrode pads
because energy reducer 304 must be connected to the pads to operate, is not
persuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1
recitation of “a device separate from the AED unit and the electrode pad
which, when connected to the AED unit receptacle, causes the AED unit to
execute the pediatric rescue protocol” includes a device which may be
connected to the electrode pad set.
Appellant argues that Olson does not disclose “the AED unit
including a receptacle” and “a device separate from the AED unit and the
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

10
electrode pad which, when connected to the AED unit receptacle, causes the
AED unit to execute the pediatric rescue protocol,” as required by claim 1
(App. Br. 9–11). Appellant argues that Olson discloses “only a single
connector 30, [which] allows either the electrode pad with the energy
reducer 304 or the electrode pad 50A/50B to be directly connected to the
AED unit, but never both at the same time” (id. at 9).
Appellant’s argument appears to be that claim 1 requires that both the
an electrode pad and the separate device are directly connected to the AED
unit such that the Olson arrangement cited by the Examiner wherein the
electrode pad is connected to the separate device, i.e. the energy reducer,
which is then connect to a receptacle in the AED unit does not meet the
limitations of claim 1. That argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not
require that the electrode pad is directly connected to the AED unit, but
rather recites that the electrode pad “is removably connected to the AED
unit.”
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Olson.
Claims 2 and 5–7 have not been argued separately from claim 1, and,
therefore, fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant also argues the rejection of independent claim 12.
Appellant argues that claim 12 “recites two distinct connecting steps: one for
connecting the electrode pad and one for connecting the separate device
which causes the AED to respond by executing a pediatric rescue protocol”
(App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that “Olson et al. fail completely to disclose
the step of connecting a device separate from the electrode pad to the AED
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

11
unit. Olson et al. recite at most a connecting of an electrode pad, either
having an energy reducer 304 or not, to the AED unit” (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 12 requires the steps
of “connecting an electrode pad that is suitable for use with either adult or
pediatric patients to the AED unit; and connecting a device separate from the
electrode pad to the AED unit.” As discussed above for claim 1, claim 12
does not require directly connecting the electrode pad to the AED unit.
Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 12 recitation of
“connecting an electrode pad . . . to the AED unit” encompasses the process
disclosed in Olson wherein the electrode pad is indirectly connected to the
AED unit via connection with the attenuator.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 12 as being anticipated by
Olson. Claims 13–16 have not been argued separately from claim 12 and
therefore fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Conclusion of Law
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that Olson discloses an AED system comprising an AED unit
having a receptacle, which is operable to execute either an adult or a
pediatric rescue protocol, and “an electrode pad that is suitable for use with
either adult or pediatric patients and which is removably connected to the
AED unit,” wherein the AED system further comprises “a device separate
from the AED unit and the electrode pad which, when connected to the AED
unit receptacle, causes the AED unit to execute the pediatric rescue
protocol,” as required by claim 1.
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

12
II.
Issue
The Examiner has rejected dependent claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Olson and Picardo (Ans. 5–6).
Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and further requires that “the
receptacle comprises an aperture in the AED unit, wherein the separate
device is insertable into the aperture,” and that “the aperture is sealed off
from the interior of the AED unit which contains the circuitry for delivering
a defibrillating shock.”
The issue presented is: Has the Examiner established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Olson and Picardo
would have made obvious the automatic external defibrillator (AED) system
of claim 1 wherein the receptacle is an aperture in the AED unit and the
aperture is sealed off from the interior of the AED unit, as required by claim
3?
Findings of Fact
FF17. The Examiner finds that Olson “discloses the use of an
aperture 30 which activates a defibrillation sequence. However, Olson is
silent as to the aperture being sealed off from the shock circuitry” (Ans. 5).
FF18. The Examiner finds that Picardo “discloses an aperture 30 that
receives and automatically detects a plug from an electrode pad, much like
Olson” (id. (citing Picardo at col. 5, ll. 55–60, col. 6, ll. 45–54, and Fig. 1)).
FF19. The Examiner finds that “Picardo discloses that the aperture is
electrically sealed off from the shock circuitry to prevent injury of the user”
(id. (citing Picardo at col. 5, ll. 65–col. 6, l. 4)).
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

13
FF20. Picardo discloses “external defibrillators or automatic or semi-
automatic external defibrillator (AEDs) . . . [wherein the] defibrillator is
automatically activated or inactivated by, for example, inserting or removing
an object, such as a plug or a pin, into a receptacle within the defibrillator
housing” (Picardo, Abstract).
FF21. Figure 1B of Piccardo is shown below:

Figure 1B is a perspective view of a defibrillator, wherein a removable
object “is shown removed from the receptacle” (id. at col. 3, ll. 16–20).
FF22. Picardo discloses that a removable object is “inserted into a
receptacle 30 within the defibrillator housing” (id. at col. 3, ll. 42–43).
FF23. Picardo discloses that, in “one embodiment, the object 20 is a
plug and the plug is inserted into the female opening designed to engage the
electrode cable connector” (id. at col. 5, ll. 55–57).
FF24. Picardo discloses that, in this embodiment,
the patient connector socket is protected when the defibrillator
is not in use. This can be particularly important where the
connector system is not designed to remove debris . . . .
Another advantage is that the plug provides a physical barrier;
preventing the user from touching the pins within the patient
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

14
connector socket. This, in turn, enables the AED to test the
electrode pins during a high voltage self-test without risk of
causing injury.

(Id. at col. 5, l. 62– col. 6, l. 3.)
FF25. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious at
the time of the appellant’s invention to seal the aperture of Olson from the
shock circuitry as taught by Picardo in order to prevent injury to the user”
(Ans. at 5–6).
Analysis
Appellant argues that Olson discloses an “electrode connector 30 into
which the special pediatric electrode set 400 is plugged” but does not
suggest a connector which is sealed off from the shock circuitry” (App. Br.
12). Appellant argues that Picardo discloses “a defibrillator which is
automatically activated or inactivated by inserting or removing an object,
such as a plug or a pin, into a receptacle within the defibrillator housing . . .
[but] fail[s] to disclose or suggest any aperture which provides a sealed
barrier to the AED interior” (id.). Appellant argues that, “[w]hether the
Picardo et al. plug provides the barrier is irrelevant to the Claim . . . [which
requires that a] sealed aperture provides a barrier to the AED interior
irrespective of whether the plug is connected” (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Picardo discloses that the
accumulation of debris in connector sockets is a concern, and discloses also
that the protection of individuals from the high voltage circuitry of the AED
unit is also a concern. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of skill in the art to provide receptacles that are
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

15
apertures in the housing of the AED unit, and that are sealed off from the
interior of the AED unit in order to both prevent debris from contacting the
internal circuitry and to protect users from the high-voltage internal
circuitry. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 as being obvious in view
of Olson and Picardo. Claim 4 has not been argued separately from claim 3,
and, therefore, falls with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Conclusion of Law
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Olson and Picardo would have made
obvious the automatic external defibrillator (AED) system of claim 1,
wherein the receptacle is an aperture in the AED unit and the aperture is
sealed off from the interior of the AED unit, as required by claim 3.
III.
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Olson and Nova (Ans. 6). Claim 9 depends
from claim 1 and further requires that “the separate device further comprises
an indicator of the placement of the . . . electrode pad on a pediatric patient.”
The issue presented is: Has the Examiner established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Olson and Nova
would have made obvious the automatic external defibrillator system of
claim 1, wherein “the separate device further comprises an indicator of the
placement of the of the electrode pad on a pediatric patient,” as required by
claim 9?
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

16
Findings of Fact
FF26. The Examiner finds that Olson discloses “appellant’s basic
invention, with the exception of the electrodes providing an indication of the
placement of electrodes placed on a pediatric patient or an adult patient”
(Ans. 6).
FF27. The Examiner finds that Nova discloses that, “when attached
to an adult or pediatric patient, the electrodes provide an indication to the
AED of the placement, and modifies the AED visual, lighted outputs and
defibrillation parameters” (id. (citing Nova at 2, ¶ 0015 and 6–7, ¶ 0076)).
FF28. Nova discloses “multi-electrode pad arrangements and
electrode sensing for providing electrotherapy/monitoring to patients of
varying size or age. In certain embodiments of the invention, the electrode
arrangements have a larger electrode suitable for use in treating an adult-size
patient and a smaller electrode suitable for use in treating a pediatric-size
patient” (id. at 1, ¶ 0010).
FF29. Nova discloses
a sensing mechanism for an electrotherapy or monitoring
apparatus to detect which of the electrodes in the electrode
arrangements are attached to the patient . . . . [T]he device may
modify its output display in order to reflect the electrode
configuration being used.

(Id. at 2, ¶ 0015.)
FF30. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify Olson to indicate placement of
the adult or pediatric electrodes in order to provide the proper treatment to
each respective category of patient” (id.).
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

17
Analysis
Appellant argues that “Nova et al. fail to disclose or suggest any
indicator of pediatric or adult electrode placement at all. Instead, Nova et al.
merely display the energy output particular to the adult or pediatric patient”
(App. Br. 14).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how the combination of Olson and Nova would have made
obvious an automatic external defibrillator (AED) system comprising a
device separate from the AED unit and the electrode pad that “further
comprises an indicator of the placement of the . . . electrode pad on a
pediatric patient,” as required by claim 9.
The Examiner relies on Olson’s energy reducer 304 as being the
separate device. However, Nova discloses that a display is used to show
which set of electrode pads is being used, and the Examiner has not
explained why one of skill in the art would have provided such a display on
Olson’s separate device.
Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 9 as being obvious over the
combination of Olson and Nova. We also reverse the rejection of claims 10
and 11, which directly or indirectly depend from 9.
Conclusion of Law
The preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Olson and Nova would have made
obvious the automatic external defibrillator system of claim 1, wherein “the
separate device further comprises an indicator of the placement of the of the
electrode pad on a pediatric patient,” as required by claim 9.
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

18
IV.
The Examiner has rejected claims 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Olson and Snyder (Ans. 6–7) (Rejection
IV). Claims 17–19 all depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly.
The Examiner finds that Olson discloses “delivering different
defibrillation instructions for pediatric patients and adult patients . . . [but] is
silent as to delivering CPR instructions as well as visual instructions” (Ans.
6). The Examiner finds that Snyder “discloses delivering different CPR and
defibrillation instructions for adult and pediatric patients in an AED” (id.
(citing Snyder, Abstract). The Examiner finds that “Snyder specifically
discloses the delivery of visual instructions to a user for connection of an
electrode” (id. (citing Snyder, col. 6, ll. 52–65, col. 8, ll. 54–59, col. 16, ll.
45–57, and col. 26, ll. 44–51)).
The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
. . . to utilize visual and audible instructions as taught by Snyder
with the invention of Olson since the improvement of the base
AED device of Olson would produce the expected result of
allowing deaf and blind people to assist those in need and the
improvement/combination would have been within the skill of
one of ordinary skill in the art.
(Id. at 7.)
Appellant argues that Snyder fails
to remedy the deficiencies of Olson et al. by failing to disclose
or suggest two Claim 12 steps of: 1). of connecting an electrode
pad that is suitable for use on both adult and pediatric patients,
and; 2). of connecting a device separate from the electrode pad
to the AED to cause the AED to execute the pediatric protocol
. . . Like Olson et al., Snyder et al. fail to suggest any device
separate from the AED and electrodes.
Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

19
(App. Br. 14–15.)
That argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, we have
found that Olson discloses the method of claim 12. Thus, we affirm the
rejection of claims 17 and 18 as being obvious over the combination of
Olson and Snyder.
Appellant provides further arguments for claim 19. Claim 19 depends
from claim 12 indirectly, incorporating the claim 18 limitation requiring the
step of “connecting a pedi-key to the AED unit further comprises providing
visual instructions for applying an electrode pad to a pediatric patient.”
Claim 19 adds the additional limitation that the step of “connecting a pedi-
key to the AED unit further comprises obscuring visual instructions for
applying an electrode pad to an adult patient.” Appellant argues that “the
step of obscuring adult electrode pad instructions is not disclosed or
suggested by Olson et al., Snyder et al., or any other cited reference” (App.
Br. 15).
Because the Examiner has neither addressed the limitation of claim 19
nor responded to Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 19, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the
combination of Olson and Snyder would have made obvious the method of
claim 19. Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 19 as being obvious over
the combination of Olson and Snyder.

Appeal 2012-005196
Application 11/721,549

20
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 12–16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Olson.
We affirm the rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of claims 3 and 4
over the combination of Olson and Picardo and of claims 17 and 18 over the
combination of Olson and Snyder.
We reverse the rejection of claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Olson and Nova.
We reverse the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Olson and Snyder.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

dm