Appeal No. 2006-1504 Page 4
Application No. 09/935,297
regard, that the claims do not require that the fingers be physically discrete elements or exclude
fingers that are integrally or unitarily coupled or fixed to one another at their opposite ends.
Further, while claims 1 and 23 recite that the opposite ends of the fingers are coupled together,
the claims do not require that the opposite ends be directly coupled together. The frame 12 can
reasonably be viewed as being made up of a rear finger and a front finger coupled together at the
center of the frame 12 and thus fully responds, itself, to the “plurality of resilient fingers” having
free ends and opposite ends coupled together. Moreover, each of the crosspieces can likewise
reasonably be viewed as two additional fingers coupled together at “opposite ends” (at the center
of each crosspiece), which opposite ends are coupled, through the frame 12, to the vibrating
device and to the opposite ends at which the front and rear fingers of the frame 12 meet (i.e., the
center of the frame 12).
That the frame and crosspieces of Rabin form a “head-receiving space” is quite apparent
from Figures 1-5. Moreover, in its curled up rest state, as shown in Figure 8, the head-receiving
space has a circumference that exceeds that of the opening formed by the front and rear ends of
the frame 12 and the opening is smaller than the human head. As Rabin’s scalp massager is
stretched over the head of the user and the massager is lowered onto said head so that the head
enters the head-receiving space, the free (front and rear) ends of the frame apply pressure to and
thus, at least to some degree, massage the head, by virtue of the inherent bias of the frame 12
described above.
In light of the above, we do not find the appellant’s arguments persuasive of any error on
the part of the examiner in rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 23, 26, 27 and 29 as being anticipated by
Rabin. The rejection of these claims is sustained.
The rejection of claims 15-17 as being anticipated by Rabin, however, is not sustained.
Claim 15, from which claims 16 and 17 depend, recites “each of said fingers having a
transversely extending portion … followed by a contiguous portion extending downwardly and
inwardly from said transversely extending portion.” This limitation is not met by Rabin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007