Appeal No. 97-2776
Application No. 08/252,363
device was worn 16 hours per day and that where the device was
worn 24 hours per day, the patients reported pain relief in one
to two days. Lastly, Table III shows different kinds of11
chronic injuries, including arthritis, for which the device of
Griffin was tested. All the tested patients were in constant
pain and were first treated with the device in N-pole mode until
pain was relieved. The device was then reversed to the S-pole
mode, resulting in increased circulation, strengthening of the
tissues, and promoting healing.12
Based on our analysis and review of Nakayama and claim 32,
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
arthritic pain is reduced.
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
11See column 11, lines 4-10, of Griffin.
12See column 11, lines 11-34, of Griffin.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007