Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
In this case, as in Schreiber, we have considered the
functional limitations of the claims on appeal and agree with the
examiner that they relate to intended use of the claimed device,
that they do not lend patentable weight to the presently claimed
subject matter and that such limitations are in fact inherent
characteristics of the apparatus in Johnson.
With regard to claims 2, 3 and 5, which depend from claim 1,
we note that appellant has not presented separate arguments for
the patentability of these claims and thus we consider them to
fall with independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 4 and independent claim 15 on appeal each
set forth a requirement that the pliable wrap member of
appellant’s invention have elastic properties which specifically
permit the wrap to constrict the patient’s limb or restrict its
size to thereby limit the pooling of blood and liquids in the
limb during examination. While the examiner has asserted that
the wrap member or wrist support (10) of Johnson as seen in
Figure 1 thereof is capable of being wrapped on a patient’s limb
and of restricting the limb to avoid pooling of blood and liquid
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007