Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
Specifically, Appellants assert that Matsushima does not
disclose applying a noise signal to the body, or the
production of an auditory frequency range signal. In
addition, Appellants again assert that the coils of Matsushima
do not constitute transducer means.
As regards to the Shannon reference, Appellants note that
this reference is not concerned with treatment of tinnitus
symptoms and as such is irrelevant to both the claimed
invention as well as [the Matsushima]. Appellants also assert
that no purpose has been articulated in the final Office
action for the proposed modification to "modulat[e] the
conduction frequency with the stimulus frequency of Matsushima
et al" as stated in the office action.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Office action fails21
to explain the proposed modification of the Matsushima device
in view of Shannon, and that there is no modulator in the
Matsushima device.
The Examiner asserts that the signal generator shown by22
figure 1 of Matsushima generates a 10 Hz signal among other
21Brief, page 8.
22 Answer, page 10.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007