Appeal No. 2006-1504 Page 10
Application No. 09/935,297
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 9, 18, 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lacey in view of Rabin or Blachly and further in view of Robbins.
As should be evident from our discussion above, we have determined that Lacey meets
all of the limitations of claims 9, 18, 28 and 33 with the exception of the vibrator coupled to the
opposite ends of the fingers and the free ends of the fingers terminating in a bulb or ball
structure. The provision of electric vibrators on head and scalp massagers, to stimulate the scalp,
was well known in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, as evidenced by Rabin and
Blachly. In light of this well known practice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the appellant’s invention was made to provide a vibrator in the handle of
Lacey’s massage device and coupled to the fingers extending from the handle to transmit
vibration to the fingers to stimulate the scalp as taught by Rabin or Blachly and thus enhance the
massaging effect of the device.
Robbins teaches providing the ends of fingers of a head or scalp massaging device of the
type disclosed by Lacey with bulb or ball shaped coverings, preferably of a soft, resilient plastic
coating, to protect the scalp against injury or damage (col. 3, ll. 6-10). This teaching of Robbins
would have provided ample suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the
device of Lacey to provide such coverings on the ends of the fingers to protect the scalp.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007