Appeal No. 2006-1504 Page 5
Application No. 09/935,297
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10, 15-19, 23 and 26-29 as being anticipated by Taylor is
not sustained. Taylor’s apparatus does not include a plurality of fingers defining an opening and
a head-receiving space meeting the requirements set forth in the appellant’s claims. In
particular, there are no elements (fingers) of Taylor’s apparatus that define a head-receiving
space having a circumference that exceeds the circumference of an opening defined by free ends
of such elements through which a head passes as the apparatus is lowered onto such person’s
head. The extension fingers 16, 16’ and the leg portions 20, 20’ of the headset define a head-
receiving space, but the free ends of the extension fingers 16, 16’considered by the examiner to
respond to the “fingers” of the claims do not define an opening through which the user’s head
enters the head-receiving space. Rather, the leg portions 20, 20’, and to some extent the inside
surfaces of the fingers 16, 16’, define the opening. While the headset assembly is disclosed as
being “semi-flexible,” there is no indication that the leg portions 20, 20’ thereof are or can be
bent inwardly to form a head-receiving space having a circumference exceeding that of the
opening defined by the lower ends of such leg portions.
We turn our attention next to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-33 as being unpatentable
over Robbins in view of Rabin or Blachly. Robbins discloses a head or scalp massage device
including a handle 10 and a plurality of flexible, elongated prongs or fingers 22, 24, 26, 28
protruding from the handle. Robbins describes the prongs or fingers as “preferably sufficiently
stiff as to retain their position and shape” and “somewhat resilient, inasmuch as they will return
to their initial positions after application of a force thereto less than a bending force” (col. 2, last
para.). Upon application of a force sufficient to cause bending, the prongs or fingers will stay in
that bent shape. As shown in Figure 1, each of the prongs or fingers has a covering 30 at its tip
to protect the scalp against injury or damage.
The appellant argues, on page 6 of the brief, that Robbins lacks disclosure that the fingers
are configured to define a head-receiving space and to have an opening as recited in the claims.
We do not agree. We first observe that the claims do not require that the entirety of the head be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007