Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
signals, and the 10 Hz signal yields optimal results for
tinnitus suppression. In addition, the Examiner reiterates
that the signal is applied to the patient's body by the
implant to the patient's skull bone surrounding the inner ear
and the other coil placed in the hearing aid housing which is
placed around the patient's ear.
As evidence that Matsushima uses an auditory signal, the
Examiner notes that 10 Hz and 30 kHz, the stimulus and
conduction frequencies respectively, yielded optimum results
for tinnitus suppression but that figure 6 and section 6.1
show that other frequencies which are in the auditory range
can be chosen.
Finally, the Examiner admits that Matsushima does not
specifically refer to an ultrasonic modulator, and cites
Shannon to show modulation of frequencies which are ultrasonic
as well as in the audio range. In the rejection, the 23
Examiner finds that since Matsushima and Shannon are both
directed to audio signals and ultrasonic signals, the
modulating of audio signals into the ultrasonic frequency
range as disclosed by Shannon would have been recognized in
23 Brief, page 5.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007