Appeal No. 97-2776
Application No. 08/252,363
In this instance the Examiner has not met this initial
burden. The teachings of the prior art as a whole indicate that
application of magnetic fields to body parts to alleviate pain
associated with that body part has been undertaken. See the
following references of record: Nakayama, Markoll and Griffin,
the teachings of which are set forth infra in the new grounds of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner's reliance on Lin
is insufficient evidence, in our opinion, to show that a person
having ordinary skill in this art would doubt the objective truth
of the claimed method. While the effect appears to be condition-
dependent, such as strength of magnetic field, time of
application or means of contact, that does not negate the
underlying expectation of success in the application of magnetic
fields to alleviate pain.
The Obviousness Issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 24 through 29, 31
and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama
in view of Lin and Griffin.
In this rejection, the examiner stated (final rejection, p.
5) that "[a]lthough a field strength of 2-20 gauss is not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007