Appeal No. 2004-0363
Application 09/176,866
described in Rohrer, i.e., an applicator having the claimed
cavity. Moreover, Rohrer teaches using the claimed applicator in
a messaging device having a vacuum means useful for a human
scalp, arms, limbs and other body parts. See column 1, lines 5-9
and column 2, lines 39-41. This applicator, like the applicator
of Holt, can be used “to stimulate . . . body surfaces and also
to clean loose . . . foreign materials from body surfaces.” See
column 1, lines 43-50.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ
the applicator of Rohrer as the applicator of the massaging
device of the type described in Holt, motivated by a reasonable
expectation of successfully stimulating body surfaces, as well as
removing foreign materials from body surfaces.
The appellant argues that Marshall does not remedy the above
deficiencies of Holt. See the Brief, pages 14-15. However, the
appellant does not challenge the examiner’s holding that it would
have been obvious to employ the claimed control system taught by
Marshall in the massaging device of the type described in Holt.
Id. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we concur with the examiner
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007