Appeal No. 96-1391
Application 08/170,503
However, applying these principles, we do not agree with
appellants that Sconce is not anticipatory of claims 1 and 4.
Appellants argue that Sconce does not disclose or
teach using the inflatable device disclosed “for post opera-
tion nor in closing an incision, puncture or cut in the femo-
ral artery,” as recited in the preamble of claim 1. Neverthe-
less, Sconce does disclose an inflatable splint for immobiliz-
ing an injured extremity and for “applying thermal [e.g.,
cold] pressure to an injured area” of an immobilized extrem-
ity, including a bladder releasably secured “around an injured
arm or leg” and which “also can act as a tourniquet by re-
stricting the flow of blood to the injured area in accordance
with the amount of pressure it exerts” (col. 1, lines 4 to
13). Sconce further expressly discloses application of the
splint to a patient’s leg as follows: The splint “can be
applied in a large number of configurations throughout the
body, such as at the . . . legs of the patient” (col. 1, lines
33 to 36) and “the [inflatable] bladder [of the splint] can
surround various areas of any extremity of a patient which may
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007