Appeal No. 96-2635
Application 07/993,050
On page 9 of the examiner's answer, the examiner
indicates that
[t]he examiner concedes that Ross et al does
not explicitly state or suggest the
monitoring of the mu wave.
In addition, the examiner urges that it has never been a
contention by the examiner that Ross discloses the measurement of
the mu wave. Instead, it is the examiner's position that
Ross et al does measure and monitor the brain
waves emanating from the motor cortex region
of the brain, but Ross et al is silent on the
frequencies over which the waves are
monitored. Since the mu wave involves
measuring the 8-13 Hz brainwaves emanating
from the motor cortex, Ross et al fails to
show all claimed features. Ross et al only
shows the location of brain waves. This
deficiency is filled by the teaching
reference, Settle et al (U.S. Pat. No.
4,013,068, referred to by the appellant as
“Settle”). Settle et al, as discussed in the
body of the above rejection, teaches using
the 7.5-13 Hz brain waves for teaching mind
control. Since mind control is the primary
concern of Ross et al (and the primary
concern of the present inventors) it is the
position of the examiner that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
this art to utilize this range when using the
device and method of Ross et al since Ross et
al is silent on the frequency of use and
since mind control is of import to the Ross
et al objectives. The resulting device and
method would then monitor the 7.5-13 Hz
brainwaves emanating from the motor cortex of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007