Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
therefore be considered as a positive limitation in determining
patentability. See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric
U.S.A. Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir.
1989) and Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps Inc., 850 F.2d 675,
7 USPQ2d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Moreover, we consider that the preamble language and
recitations related thereto in the body of claim 1 on appeal
would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as
reasonably restricting the size of the “pliable wrap member for a
limb of the patient” set forth therein. That is, the recited
wrap member would have been viewed as being of a relatively small
size like that seen in Figures 4 and 6 of the application
drawings, as being easily and quickly applied to the limb of the
patient in a close fitting manner and as permitting the patient’s
limb to be quickly and easily affixed to the surgeon’s gown or
apron and then manipulated in a manner desired for arthroscopic
examination and surgery of the associated joint. By contrast, we
do not view the large, sheet-like patient covering or drape (30)
seen in Sosebee as being such a “wrap member for a limb of the
patient.” Indeed, we find it highly speculative on the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007