Appeal No. 2001-0628
Application No. 09/118,665
forearm 2 of a subject is rigidly affixed via a strap 3,
electrical detectors 4 applied to the forearm, and a hand grip 7
mounted for rotation about an axis 6 against a selected level of
resistance.
In proposing to combine Knuttel, Shellock or Captain Jack,
and Cook to reject claims 59 through 68, 70, 71, 75, 77 through
80 and 88 through 91, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious in view of either Shellock or Captain Jack “to have
modified Knuttel et al such that the vertical imaging system is
combined with means for analyzing a joint” (answer, page 4), and
in view of Cook “to have further modified Knuttel et al such that
a cuff is used to grip a portion of the patient’s body adjacent
the body portion [sic, joint]” (answer, page 5) and “to have
applied a force to the joint such that it can be analyzed under
stress . . . to provide a complete analysis of the joint under
normal use conditions” (answer, page 5).
Rejections based on § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA
1967). In making such a rejection, the examiner has the initial
duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not,
because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007