Appeal No. 99-0514
Application 08/636,421
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5 to 14 will not be sustained.
Rejections Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
(1) Claims 5 to 8 are rejected as unpatentable over Sabolich, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) or 103(a).
Sabolich discloses essentially the same system as appellants, namely, a prosthesis for the residual thigh
of an above-the-knee amputee, having a limb assembly 14, a socket 16 therein, and an inflatable
compartment 18 associated with the socket. The differences, if any, between the apparatus recited in
claims 5 to 8 (as well as claims 9 to 14) and that disclosed by Sabolich reside in the configuration of
the particular channels in the socket.
With regard to the channels recited in claims 5 and 7, Sabolich discloses a channel 24 (Fig. 3)
and a channel 26 (Fig. 4) which correspond, respectively, to the channels recited in these claims, being
defined by the same muscles (col. 5, lines 39 to 56). Sabolich does not specifically state that either of
these channels "is shaped to conform substantially to a channel which extends substantially to the distal
end of the muscles of the residual thigh," as recited in claims 5 and 7, but we consider that these claims
are nevertheless anticipated by Sabolich under § 102(b) because: (i) Sabolich's channels 24 and 26, as
shown in Figs. 3 and 4, extend "substantially" to the distal end of the muscles of the residual thigh, as
broadly recited. (ii) The proximity of the lower ends of Sabolich's channels 24 and 26 to the distal end
of the residual thigh would be dependent on the length of the residual thigh. Considering claim 7 for
example, if the residual thigh were so short that the channel defined anteriorly by the vastus lateralis
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007