Appeal No. 2002-1645 Page 20
Application No. 09/281,553
depicted in Figure 5)); said arm supports and said back support cooperating to support
the patient's arms and upper body when the standing patient is positioned within said
interior space in the upright position (support rod 11 and armrests 10 are capable of
cooperating to support the arms and upper body of a suitably sized standing patient
(e.g., a patient smaller than the patient depicted in Figure 5) when the suitably sized
standing patient is positioned within the interior space in an upright position).
At this point, the burden has shifted to the appellant to show that the prior art
structure of Haruyama does not inherently possess the functionally/capability defined
limitations of the claimed apparatus. The appellant has failed to do so.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Haruyama is affirmed. The appellant
has grouped claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 as standing or falling together.4 Thereby, in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 5 and 10 fall with claim 1. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Haruyama is also affirmed.
4 See page 2 of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007