Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
selected body part of said patient." The means disclosed by 39
Appellants for implementing the aforesaid function of the
"means” is an applicator 16a.
This means-plus-function clause is construed as limited
to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification
and equivalents thereof. This structure is met by the
ultrasonic transducer 12 and headset 14 of Shannon. As
Appellants' embodiment and Shannon both apply ultrasonic
frequency signals physically to the patient, they perform the
same function and as Appellants have not disclosed any
particular applicator for applying the signal to the patient,
the transducer and headset of Shannon are an equivalent. They
perform the same claimed function in substantially the same
way to achieve substantially the same result.
Having established the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, as regards this claim, we turn to the prior
art. The preamble of claim 1 recites "[a]pparatus for
treating a patient for symptoms caused by tinnitus . . . ."
The Matsushima article is replete with disclosure of an
apparatus for such treatment. For example, the title to the
39Specification, page 4, lines 22-25.
33
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007