Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
intermediate lateral offsets 16 whereby the rods can be
rotationally adjusted to fit operating tables of different
widths (col. 2, lines 58-64).
The examiner finds correspondence between the structure
disclosed in Michelson '943 and appellant's claims 18 and 32,
except for the pivoting legs. It is the examiner's position
that
Heffington, Jr. teaches that the problem of fitting
surgical supports to operating tables of different
widths was known in the art and a solution to this
problem was to provide the frame with pivotal
mounting rods . . . . From the teaching in
Heffington, Jr., it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to substitute the pivoting rods
shown in Heffington, Jr. for the mounting rods
disclosed in Michelson . . . . (Answer, page 5)
It is the appellant's position that neither reference
shows pivoting legs attached to a surgical frame and that
Heffington's support rods are attached to a padded buttocks
support, not to a surgical frame as recited in the independent
claims.
We do not find appellant's argument to be persuasive.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007