Appeal No. 2004-1250
Application No. 09/760,400 Page 8
Chung for their beneficial effects in relaxing the mind and body
as taught by Komatsu (column 2, lines 3-8). Concerning this
matter, Chung (column 2, lines 66 and 67) teaches that other
vibrators may be used in the disclosed seat cushion device.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the patentability of
claim 4 based on the features of claim 1 are not persuasive for
the reasons set forth above. Moreover, appellant’s discussion
concerning alleged differences over the Hofmeister reference are
not relevant since the examiner’s rejection is over the combined
teachings of Chung and Komatsu, not Hofmeister. As for
appellant’s viewpoint that impermissible hindsight may be
involved in the examiner’s proposed modification of Chung based
on the teachings of Komatsu, we note that appellant does not
specifically address much less persuasively refute the examiner’s
reasons for the proposed modification based on asserted benefits
described in Komatsu. On this record, we will sustain the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007