Appeal No. 2002-2319 Page 10
Application No. 09/129,197
hand of the arm is disposed at the open end of the trough,” a member which “engages
a portion of the hand and limits relative movement of the panel towards the elbow end,”
and the panel, in a relaxed state, having a lesser length than the length of the patient’s
arm from the elbow end to the portion of the hand “so that the panel material is
longitudinally stretched and substantially evenly engages the patient’s elbow.”
For the reasons discussed above with regard to the examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection of claim 19, we have determined that claim 19 does not recite the arm, elbow
and hand of a patient. Rather, these body parts are simply referred to in the claim to
define the environment in which the sling is to be used. As discussed above,
appellant’s invention is directed to the sling and not to a patient or to the parts of the
patient’s body. A sling is an article of manufacture and thus is statutory subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It thus follows that we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The prior art rejections
Turning first to the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 19 as being anticipated by
Ackley, appellant argues that Ackley fails to disclose the limitations of claims 10 and 19
italicized in our reproduction of these claims, supra. For the reasons which follow, we
do not find appellant’s arguments persuasive.
Ackley discloses a sling adapted for fitting closely around an arm and cast
assemblage, the sling comprising an over-the-shoulder strap, an elongated tubular
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007