Appeal No. 2006-1504 Page 2
Application No. 09/935,297
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a head massaging device. A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following as evidence of anticipation and obviousness in
rejecting the claims on appeal.
Rowe 836,217 Nov. 20, 1906
Erickson 2,113,444 Apr. 5, 1938
Blachly 3,585,990 Jun. 22, 1971
Rabin 5,421,799 Jun. 6, 1995
Taylor 5,611,771 Mar. 18, 1997
Lacey AU-S-134633 August 12, 1998
Robbins 6,450,980 B1 Sep. 17, 2002 (Jul. 21, 2000)
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1, 2, 7, 15-17, 23, 26, 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rabin.
(2) Claims 1-3, 7-10, 15-19, 23 and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Taylor.
(3) Claims 1-4 and 6-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Robbins in view of Rabin or Blachly.
(4) Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13-17, 19, 22-27 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Rabin.
(5) Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in
view of Rabin and Rowe.
(6) Claims 1-4 and 6-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lacey in view of Rabin or Blachly. This is a new ground of rejection entered in the examiner’s
answer (mailed November 3, 2005), pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.39(b).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the examiner's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007