Appeal 2007-2294
Application 09/740,169
downwardly from the frame means,” but argues that “Nelson suggests that a
body strap (torso harness means) can be used if necessary and desirable (col.
7, lines 16-18)” and that “the torso harness means being effective to
maintain a person in gravity traction suspension position.” (Id.) The
Examiner concludes “[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify . . .
Nelson’s apparatus, as suggested above, to include a torso harness means
coupled to the frame means, for the purpose of securing the user relatively to
the frame means . . . if necessary or desirable.” (Id.)
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to
determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we considered the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
Appellant argues that in Nelson, the body strap does not depend
downwardly from the table but extends upwardly from it (Appeal Br. 16).
We agree, and as the Examiner does not provide reasons or argument as to
how Nelson renders obvious “torso harness means coupled to depend
downwardly from the frame means,” as required by independent claim 1,
“torso harness means coupled to flexibly depend downwardly from said
frame means,” as required by independent claim 9, or “harness means being
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013