Appeal No. 2001-0628
Application No. 09/118,665
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id.
In the present case, the disclosures by Shellock or Captain
Jack of kinematic MRI techniques for analyzing knee, wrist and/or
ankle joints would not have suggested modifying the methods
respectively depicted by Figures 4 and 5 of Knuttel to include
such kinematic techniques so as to account for the above noted
bending limitations in the claims. To begin with, and as shown
in Figures 4 and 5, Knuttel’s vertically disposed electromagnets
31 and 45, in their operative positions, do not encompass a
patient’s knee, wrist and/or ankle joints. Furthermore, these
vertically disposed electromagnets would not on their face appear
to be amenable to the sorts of fixtures or mechanisms necessary
to implement kinematic techniques for analyzing these or other
joints. Cook’s disclosure of a method of measuring electrical
activity in the muscles controlling a joint using a forearm
cradle, strap and resistance-adjustable hand grip does not cure
this basic flaw in the proposed combination of Knuttel and either
Shellock or Captain Jack, and would not have suggested further
modifying Knuttel’s MRI process to account for the above noted
gripping and tractive force limitations in the claims. The
applied references also fail to account for the recitation in
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007