Appeal No. 2001-0628
Application No. 09/118,665
the subject matter now recited in claims 59 through 68, 70, 71,
75 through 80 and 84 through 91.
Furthermore, the examiner has failed to advance acceptable
reasoning for the proposition that the appellants’ disclosure,
considering the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date
of the application, would not have enabled a person of such skill
to effect without undue experimentation a method as recited in
claims 59 through 68, 70, 71, 75 through 80 and 84 through 91
including the step of gripping a portion of the patient’s body
adjacent to the joint with a cuff. In this regard, adapting the
gripping cuff structure disclosed by the appellants to the
vertically extending MRI primary coil 368 would appear to be a
relatively simple and straightforward enterprise.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain either of
the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejections of claims 59
through 68, 70, 71, 75 through 80 and 84 through 91.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 59 through 68, 70,
71, 75, 77 through 80 and 88 through 91 as being unpatentable
over Knuttel in view of either Shellock or Captain Jack, and
further in view of Cook
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007