Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
or garment (4) capable of being worn by a surgeon and having at
least one cooperating surface member with a pressure sensitive
surface (12), and a pressure sensitive surface (34) on the wrap
(10) for affixing the patient’s limb to a plurality of positions
on the garment or wrap (4). Concerning claims 4 and 15 on
appeal, the examiner notes that the wrap member (10) of Johnson
is said to have elastic properties (col. 1, lines 60-64 and col.
4, lines 20 and 35). With respect to the preamble recitations
directed to “arthroscopic examination of a patient’s joint” and
the surgeon’s manipulation of the joint to facilitate adequate
visualization of the intra-articular structures of the joint, the
examiner states that such language has “not been given patentable
weight” because the claims are drawn to structure and the portion
of the claims following the preamble are a self-contained
description of the structure not depending for completeness upon
the introductory clause (supplemental answer, page 4). The
examiner has additionally determined that Johnson explicitly
discloses every structural limitation of the rejected claims and
inherently discloses every functional limitation recited in the
claims.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007