Appeal No. 96-2454
Application No. 08/052,737
524 F.2d 1222, 1226, 187 USPQ 664, 667 (CCPA 1975). We are of
the view that such is the case here, for in addition to the inner
elastic element specifically mentioned in the text, from our
perspective other arrangements, such as elastic means external of
the telescopic tubes, would have been apparent to the artisan.
The second issue raised by the examiner is that there is no
support in the specification for the requirement in claim 1 that
each joint splint be coupled at its lower end to the lower leg
part “via a lower pivotal point.” While we agree with the
examiner that the written description is lacking an explicit
statement that this is the case, we are persuaded by the
appellant’s arguments that such would have been apparent to one
of ordinary skill in the art. We arrive at this conclusion by
applying the principles of geometry. Given that the point of
rotation of the lower leg about the wearer’s knee is beneath and
forward of the point of rotation of the joint splints, in order
for the joint splints to move rearwardly behind the knee when the
knee is bent they must telescopically shorten and must pivot with
respect to both of the parts to which they are attached. It is
impossible to have such knee movement if the lower attachment
point does not allow the rigid joint splints to pivot with
respect to the lower leg part, and one of ordinary skill would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007