Appeal No. 2001-2205
Application 09/228,987
no disclosure of any surface member adapted to be carried by a
surgeon. We have dealt with appellant’s argument regarding the
preamble recitations in our determination above regarding claim 1
on appeal and we remain of the view that the functional and use
limitations set forth in the preamble and body of that claim do
not impose any structural limitation on the apparatus defined in
appellant’s claims 1 and 5 through 7 that are not also present in
the apparatus of Johnson.
With particular regard to appellant’s assertion that Johnson
provides no disclosure of any surface member adapted to be
carried by a surgeon, we must agree with the examiner that the
adjustable length abdominal wrap or harness (4) of Johnson is
clearly “adapted to be worn by a surgeon” performing an
arthroscopic examination. While Johnson does not describe such a
use of the apparatus therein, we have concluded that the
structure seen in Johnson is fully capable of the use set forth
in appellant’s claims 1 and 5 through 7 on appeal. We are not
here dealing with a method claim for using an apparatus like that
defined in claims 1 and 5 through 7 on appeal, but with claims
directed to the apparatus itself. In this case, Johnson
discloses an apparatus (i.e., the wrist wrap (10) and
23
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007