Appeal No. 97-2776
Application No. 08/252,363
With regard to these differences, it is our opinion that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the appellants' invention to have modified Nakayama's
magnetic medical treatment device to apply a low intensity
magnetic field not greater than 20 gauss to relieve pain as
suggested and taught by Markoll.
Dependent claim 27 recites that the magnetic field is 15
gauss or less. Dependent claim 28 further limits the magnetic
field to 10 gauss or less. In view of Markoll's teaching of
applying a low intensity magnetic field not greater than 20
gauss, it is our view that the level of the magnetic field
applied is an obvious matter of designer's choice. See In re
Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Dependent claim 29 adds to independent claim 31 the
limitation that the body is contacted with the S-pole of the
magnetic material. As set forth above, Nakayama teaches that the
magnets are arranged so that the same polarity poles of the
magnets contact the selected part of the human body. Since the
magnets have only two poles, it is our determination that it
would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007