Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
We here again repeat our finding above as to claim 10,
that the Examiner's contention that one of the coils of
Matsushima must vibrate is without adequate foundation.
Matsushima is devoid of any teaching that a coil comprises an
electric/vibratory transducer and no evidence has been
provided to support the contention that such coil must
vibrate. Furthermore, [the Matsushima] disclose their devices
to operate solely by electrical tinnitus suppression.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence
when the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching
in a
prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima
when taken with Shannon.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and reverse the rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a), and the rejection of claims 11, 13 and 14
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007