Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
the generation of a masking noise signal, does not teach the
use of an ultrasonic masking noise signal, and fails to show
the conversion of an electrical signal into a human sensory
signal. Appellants then assert that Shannon fails to cure
these deficiencies.
In addition, Appellants argue that since Matsushima does
not apply an audiometric signal to a patient, there is nothing
in Matsushima which would be modified by Shannon.
As regards to claim 14, Appellants argue that neither of
these references teaches the generation of a first audio
frequency masking signal and transposing it to an ultrasonic
frequency range.
Regarding claim 15, Appellants argue that neither
reference teaches the step of converting the masking noise
signal of claim 14 into a vibratory signal.
We note that the preamble of claim 13 recites "[a] method
for treating a patient for symptoms of tinnitus . . . ." The
Matsushima article is replete with disclosure of methods and
apparatus to be used with the method for such treatment. For
example, the title to the article is "DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLANTED
ELECTRICAL TINNITUS SUPPRESSOR," and the abstract of the
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007