Appeal 2007-2294
Application 09/740,169
In the Reply Brief, Appellant points to Figure 8 of the instant
disclosure, which shows “a patient in a ‘vertical traction suspension
position’ when held by the torso harness 35 and pad element 25 (the
traction force focusing means attached to the frame means) applies a
‘focused traction pressure directly to a selected location along the spine of
the person who is in said vertical traction suspension position.’” (Reply Br.
4.) Moreover, the Specification teaches that the “torso harness means is
coupled to flexibly depend from the frame structure to suspend the person
from the frame structure in a vertical, gravity traction position.”
(Specification 7.) In addition, the “patient’s lower body freely suspends
from the frame structure to allow for subtle side-to-side shifts in the patient’s
weight . . . .” (Id. at 8.)
We thus interpret “said harness means being effective to maintain a
person in a vertical traction suspension position after the person dons said
harness means” consistent with the structure as shown in Figure 8 that
allows for a vertical traction suspension position and allows the lower body
to freely suspend from the frame structure. Based on that interpretation, we
agree with Appellant that the Chitwood apparatus, wherein a patient is
merely reclining on the inclined table does not meet that limitation, and the
rejection is reversed.
Claim 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Burton.
Burton is cited for teaching an apparatus for spinal traction therapy
utilizing the force of gravity, shown in Figure 2 of Burton (Answer 5). The
apparatus comprises a standing frame means and a torso harness means
coupled to depend downwardly from the frame means, wherein the frame
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013