Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
a stimulation frequency. Thus, Matsushima discloses all the33
steps of this claim.
As we have found above that Matsushima discloses all the
limitations of claims 13 and 14, these claims are obvious over
Matsushima. “[A] disclosure that anticipates under Section
102 also renders the claim invalid under Section 103, for
'anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Connell
722 F.2d at 1548, 220 USPQ at 198 (citing Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
at 794, 215 USPQ at 571).
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 13 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matsushima.
As regards to claim 15, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of
the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to the claimed invention by the
express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions.
33 See, inter alia, section 7.1 where Matsushita et al
discusses the use of modulation frequencies of 10, 100 and
1000 Hz upon a carrier signal.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007