Appeal No. 2004-0363
Application 09/176,866
Here, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding
that Holt teaches a massaging device corresponding to the massage
apparatus recited in claim 1, except for (1) its applicator
cavity not being “substantially the size of the end surface” and
not being capable of “permitting skin to be drawn inwardly” and
(2) its connection tube not being “capable of applying at least a
partial vacuum to the cavity so as to draw and stretch fibrous
tissue of the human body within the cavity” and “adapted to pass
contaminants from the cavity . . .” See claim 1 on appeal,
together with the appellant’s arguments at pages 10-13 of the
Brief. The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Holt
teaches the claimed applicator cavity and connection tube. On
this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
We observe that Holt illustrates three applicators in Figure
4, with at least one of which having a cavity “substantially the
size of the end surface.” These applicators are removably
mounted to the head 10 of Holt’s massaging device. See page 2,
lines 5-50. Although Holt does not indicate that its applicator
cavity and connector tube have the claimed functional
capabilities as indicated by the appellant, it is reasonable to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007