Appeal No. 96-2454
Application No. 08/052,737
The appellant's invention is directed to a knee joint
orthosis. The subject matter before us on appeal is illustrated
by reference to claim 1, which can be found in an appendix to the
Appellant’s Supplemental Reply Brief.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.3
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answers.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Briefs.
OPINION
The examiner has raised two issues with regard to the
specification, which result in the rejection of the claims under
the first paragraph of Section 112. The first of these is with
regard to the recitation in independent claim 19 and dependent
claim 20 (which depends from claim 1) of the limitation that “an
elastic device permanently limits movement of the joint splint in
3A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was
overcome by an amendment subsequent to the final rejection
(Examiner’s Answer, page 1).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007