Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sosebee. It
follows that the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Sosebee, which claims depend from
claim 1, also will not be sustained.
We next look to the examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hubbard. Claim 11
reads as follows:
11. A flexible material for controlling the positioning of
a patient’s limb and for restricting swelling and the pooling of
fluids in the limb resulting from surgery, said material
comprising:
a) an elongated strip of stretchable, elastic material
adapted to be wrapped about the limb to constrict its size and to
restrict swelling and pooling of fluids in the limb; and
b) said strip having a pressure sensitive surface for
fixation to another surface for controlling the position of the
limb, and a tab having a hook surface which is affixed to said
strip for engaging said pressure sensitive surface and
maintaining it in a stretched, restricting position about a
patient’s limb.
In the examiner’s opinion, Hubbard discloses a flexible
material comprising an elongated elastic strip (16) adapted to be
wrapped about a limb to constrict its size and capable of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007