Appeal No. 96-2635
Application 07/993,050
the patient. This, by definition, would
constitute monitoring the mu wave.
For the reasons aptly stated by appellants in their
brief (pages 6-13), and particularly, in their reply brief, we
find the examiner's above-noted reasoning and conclusion of
obviousness to be in error. Appellants claim a method of
measuring one particular brain wave of the apparently several
different brain waves that exist in the 8-13 Hz frequency range
and controlling that particular brain wave (the mu wave) in a
defined manner to produce a particular result (i.e., a binary
control signal derived from the changes of the mu wave above and
below a predetermined threshold level). Nothing in Ross alone,
or in combination with the other references applied by the
examiner, teaches or suggests appellants' claimed method.
Contrary to the examiner's position, neither Ross nor Settle
teaches or suggests monitoring or use of the mu wave in the
manner defined in claims 1 through 5, 7 through 17, 21 and 22 on
appeal. As urged by appellants, it appears clear that Ross, like
Settle, is dealing with alpha waves. As pointed out by
appellants in paragraph (4) on pages 1-2 of their reply brief,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007