Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
the temporal region, in our view, the claim limitation is met by Bergin.
Now, claim 11 also calls for a “portion controller for controlling said portion of
said force.” However, under our broad, yet reasonable interpretation of claim 11,
allowing for a “portion” of the force to include the whole of the force,
anything in Bergin, from the headband to the pads to even screw 35 or the
user’s hands, which permits, or does not impede, the force from being transferred
to the temporal region is a “portion controller.”
We have sustained the rejection of claims 14-16, 19, 21-24, 26, 28 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mirmilshteyn but we have not sustained the rejection
of claims 1-4 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mirmilshteyn. We have also
sustained the rejection of claims 5-7, 11-13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as well as the rejection of claims 11-13 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) over Bergin. But, we have not sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) over Bergin.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007