Appeal No. 97-1438
Application 08/339,142
slidable adjustment relative to an end cross member 11 of the
main frame B.
In our opinion, the portable limb support device of
appellants’ claim 1 would not have been obvious based upon the
combined teachings of Lipson and Barnes. The evidence of
obviousness simply does not provide a suggestion for the
claimed portable limb support device comprising two plastic-
fabricated halves connected directly to one another by a
notched load bearing cam surface and cam follower arrangement,
allowing repositioning of the upper half and locking thereof
in at least one of an inclined, declined, and leveled
position. At best, the Barnes document would have been
suggestive of the addition of a head supporting frame C for
use with the arm or leg support of Lipson. As to the Simmons
(strap 28), Lechner (cushion 70), and Meals (blanket support
frame 18) references, we find that these documents do not
overcome the noted deficiency of the Lipson patent, in
particular. Since the evidence proffered by the examiner does
not support a conclusion of obviousness, the respective
rejections of the claims on appeal must be reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007