Appeal No. 2002-2319 Page 15
Application No. 09/129,197
limiting relative movement of the panel toward the elbow end as called for in claims 10
and 19. To overcome this deficiency, the examiner relies on the teaching of
Christensen to provide integral hand-receiving mitt sections formed by inside panel
portions 20, 22 stitched on the inside of the sling. Christensen (Figure 1) illustrates a
spacing between the user’s fingers and the front end of the mitt section. In light of this
illustration, appellant argues that Christensen would not have suggested sizing Blatt’s
sling such that the user’s hand engages the front end of the mitt section so as to limit
rearward movement of the sling.
While appellant may be correct that Blatt and Christensen provide no specific
teaching or suggestion to size Blatt’s sling for a particular patient such that its length is
less than the length of that patient’s arm from the elbow end to the fingers and the
fingers engage the front end of the mitt section so that the panel is stretched as called
for in claims 10 and 19 when applied to the patient’s arm and to apply the sling to that
patient, we reiterate that claims 10 and 19 are directed solely to the sling and not to a
method of sizing or applying the sling to a particular patient. As discussed repeatedly
above, appellant concedes that the references to the patient’s body parts form no part
of the claimed invention and serve merely to define the structure of the sling when it
supports an arm. Blatt’s sling, when modified to provide an integral mitt section on the
front end thereof as suggested by Christensen, appears reasonably capable of being
applied to an arm of a patient such that the length of such patient’s arm from the elbow
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007