Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
suppression following twice-a-day stimulation, and this
teaching is sufficient to read on the invention as claimed.
As regards Appellants' statement that the conduction
frequency has nothing to do with the stimulus signal, the
Examiner agrees that this is correct to some extent, and
states that the conduction frequency modulates the stimulus
frequency to suppress tinnitus. Furthermore, the Examiner
addresses Appellants' contention that the stimulus frequency
is not modulated by noting that the purpose of the stimulus
signal generator is to generate the 10 Hz signal, and once
generated it is modulated by the coil carrying the conduction
frequency.
We note that the preamble of claim 1 recites "Apparatus
for treating a patient for symptoms caused by tinnitus . . .
." The Matsushima article is replete with disclosure of an
apparatus for such treatment. For example, the title to the
article is "DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLANTED ELECTRICAL TINNITUS
SUPPRESSOR," and the abstract of the article notes the
treatment of 2 tinnitus patients. In addition, sections 5-7
of the article discuss implantation of the device in the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007