Appeal No. 97-2776
Application No. 08/252,363
In Examples 2 and 3, Markoll discloses treating two patients who
had recent onset of right and left elbow pain at the lateral
epicondyle (tennis-elbow) which was acute in nature, having been
sustained within the past two months. Both patients being
professionals, they under took all medical modalities that were
available, without relief. One patient could not rest his elbow
on a cushion without noting severe pain. Both patients
responded significantly after 18 magnetic therapy treatments and
have resumed normal working and sports activities without
recurrence of symptoms to date.8
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined,
the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are
to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,
148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Nakayama and claims 24,
25 and 31, it is our opinion that the only differences are:
(1) applying a magnetic field of 2 or more to 20 or less gauss,
and (2) applying that magnetic field to the portion of the body
until the pain is reduced.
8See column 4, lines 9-39, of Markoll.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007