Appeal No. 97-2776
Application No. 08/252,363
disclosed [by Nakayama] it is the examiner's position that the
device of Nakayama has a field strength in that range." We do
not agree. While it is true that the field strength of
Nakayama's device would be reduced to 20 gauss at some distance
from the device, the claims on appeal are not that broad. The
claims on appeal require, inter alia, contacting a portion of the
human body having pain with a magnetic material and applying a
magnetic field of 2 to 20 gauss to that portion of the body until
the pain is reduced. Thus, the claims on appeal require that the
magnetic material contact the human body while applying a
magnetic field of 2 to 20 gauss. While Nakayama does teach
contacting a portion of the human body for treatment with a
magnetic material, Nakayama does not teach that the magnetic
material would apply a magnetic field of 2 to 20 gauss to that
portion of the body. Since all the limitations of claims 24
through 29, 31 and 32 are not taught or suggested by the prior
art as applied by the examiner, we do not sustain this rejection.
New grounds of rejection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007