Appeal No. 99-0514
Application 08/636,421
muscle and posteriorly by the biceps femoris muscle-lateral head extended to the distal end of the
residual thigh, then the corresponding channel 26 in the socket would also extend to the distal end.
Thus, if the residual thigh for which the socket of Sabolich was made were sufficiently short, channels
24 and 26 would extend at least "substantially" to the distal end.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to extend Sabolich's channels 24 and 26 to
"substantially" the distal end of the muscles of the residual thigh. Since Sabolich teaches that the socket
should be "shaped to conform to the anatomical features of the patient's residual thigh" (col. 2, lines 42
to 45) and to "conform anatomically to the residual thigh on which it is to be worn" by providing the
socket "with a plurality of contours which correspond to the anatomical contours of the residual limb"
(col. 3, lines 33 to 37), one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to apply this teaching to the
entire residual thigh, including the distal end, by extending the recited channels substantially to the distal
end.
(2) Claims 9 to 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabolich. Each of
claims 9, 11 and 13 recites a channel in the socket which corresponds to a known channel, groove or
contour in the thigh. Thus, as appellants disclose, there is (i) a groove between the semitendinosus
muscle and the biceps femoris muscle (page 9, lines 16 and 17); (ii) a channel on the lateral thigh
defined posteriorly by the iliotibial band, etc. (page 10, lines 21 to 24); and (iii) a contour between the
rectus femoris muscle and the vastus lateralis muscle (page 11, lines 1 and 2). To provide the socket
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007