Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
Although we have considered the preamble of claim 1 and the
language related thereto in the body of the claim in evaluating
the apparatus defined therein, we consider that the "functional"
recitations in appellant's claim 1 on appeal essentially set
forth the intended use of the device defined therein and that
such functional recitations do not require any particular
structure of the apparatus in addition to that taught in Johnson.
That is, Johnson clearly discloses an apparatus comprising a) a
pliable wrap member (10) for a limb of a patient, b) an abdominal
harness member (4) sized and “adapted to be worn by a surgeon”
and having at least one cooperating surface member (12), and c)
said members having pressure sensitive surfaces (e.g., 34 on wrap
(10) and (12) on the harness (4)) for engaging one another and
for affixing the patient’s limb to a plurality of positions on
the harness. Thus, it is our opinion that all of the structure
set forth in claim 1 on appeal is found in Johnson. Moreover, we
are in agreement with the examiner's position that the apparatus
of Johnson is fully capable of being used in the manner required
in claim 1 on appeal and thereby anticipates the structure of the
apparatus defined in claim 1, notwithstanding that Johnson
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007