Appeal 2007-2294
Application 09/740,169
means has a foot stop having a first surface means and a second surface
means, wherein both surfaces can support a patient while they don the
harness (id.). According to the Examiner, the harness of Burton is effective
to suspend a person for a partial traction pressure when standing on the
second surface, which is less than full traction pressure applied to a patient
while in the vertical gravity traction suspension position (id.).
Appellant argues that the frame of Burton is a “not a standing
structure” as required by claim 9, as the frame of Burton is a rotating frame
(Appeal Br. 12). We agree, and the rejection is reversed.
The Examiner asserts that Figure 2 of Burton shows the frame, which
may include a rotating portion, is also a standing structure. Claim 9 requires
“standing frame means and torso harness means coupled to flexibly depend
downwardly from said frame means.” In Figure 2 of Burton, the torso
harness is coupled to a bar attached to two circular hoops (col. 4, ll. 55-57)
that rest on rollers driven by a drive motor (col. 5, l. 4), and thus the harness
is not coupled to a standing frame but to rings that rotate around a center.
Burton therefore does not teach all of the limitations of claim 9, and the
rejection is reversed.
Claims 1, 7, and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Nelson.
Nelson is cited for teaching a gravity traction assembly (Nelson,
Figure 7) comprising a free stand frame means, focused traction force means
attached to or adjustably connected to the frame means for applying a
predetermined amount of focused traction pressure directly to a selected
location along a user’s spine (Answer 6). According to the Examiner,
Nelson “does not include torso harness means coupled to flexibly depend
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013