Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
Matsushima et al can not function as transducer as alleged in
the Office action.
As regards claim 11, Appellants argue that Matsushima
fails to disclose the use of an electrode as an applicator
means as claimed.
The Examiner asserts that as Matsushima teaches a pair19
of coils (electrodes), one of which is implanted in the ear
and generates conduction and stimulus frequencies, at least
one of the coils must vibrate. The Examiner then reasons that
as Appellants do not know what type of coil Matsushima used,
their statement that the reference’s coil is like other coils
is opinion without factual basis. Furthermore, the Examiner
asserts that without the coils vibrating the suppression of
tinnitus could not be realized.
Finally, the Examiner cites lines 7 and 8 of the abstract
of Matsushima to show that one of the coils is implanted
inside the temporal bone, and asserts that this coil causes
the bone about the ear to vibrate.
As regards to claim 10, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of
19Answer, page 4.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007