Appeal No. 1997-2770
Application No. 08/329,994
the device at joint 47, which is approximately at the location
of the wrist. Accordingly, Richter lacks the claimed wrist
encircling means.
In addition, the examiner states (Answer, page 3) that
"[o]bviously, 3 could be secured to 5 by straps." It appears
that the examiner meant member 6 rather than operator 5, since
the claims call for a connection between the wrist and palm
encircling means, which the examiner equates with elements 3
and 6, respectively. In either case, the standard for
obviousness is not what could have been done, but rather what
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. The examiner
has failed to provide any evidence of or convincing line of
reasoning for the obviousness of using straps instead of a
knuckle joint.
Each independent claim also recites a generally resilient
rib member which is generally coextensive with a finger. The
examiner contends (Answer, page 3) that the cables of Richter
"can be considered rib members." As argued by appellant
(Brief, page 13), though, the ‘relatively stiff cable lines’
are neither generally resilient ribs nor coextensive with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007