Appeal No. 1997-1705
Application 08/211,352
language appears to have adequate written descriptive support
in the portions of the specification cited above, and the
examiner’s argued distinction between normal muscle growth and
normal range of movement (answer, pages 14-15) is not a
convincing argument to the contrary. We therefore reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of claims 6
and claims 13 and 14 which depend therefrom, and claim 17.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Jankovic in view of Snow or Das is affirmed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
affirmed as to claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 15 and 16, and reversed
as to claims 6, 13, 14 and 17.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007