Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 20, mailed November 16, 2001) for
the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s
brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 20, 2001) and reply brief (Paper
No. 18, filed September 25, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 3
and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Sosebee, we note that
Sosebee discloses a surgical apron (10) for use by a doctor when
operating on or examining the perineal regions of a patient
(i.e., the region of the body between the thighs, at the outlet
of the pelvis, specifically, the area between the anus and the
vulva in a female or between the anus and the scrotum in a male),
while the patient is in a lithotomy position on a surgical table
(Fig. 3). As best seen in Figure 4, the edge (14) of the apron
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007