Appeal No. 2002-2319 Page 3
Application No. 09/129,197
Claims 10-12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blatt in view of Christensen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 21) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 20) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claims 10 and 19, the two independent claims before us for review, read as
follows (italics added for discussion infra).2
10. A sling adapted to be applied over and supporting an
arm of a patient, the sling comprising a panel constructed of
a stretchable material and having a closed aft end and an
open front end and defining a trough adapted to receive the
arm so that an elbow end of the arm is disposed at the
closed end and a hand of the arm is disposed at the open
end of the trough when in use, a member secured to the
panel proximate the front end thereof which is formed to
engage a portion of the hand and, when the patient’s arm is
2 We note that the amendments of Paper Nos. 11 and 13 have been clerically entered in the
application file in reverse order. Upon return of this application to the Technology Center, the examiner
should take appropriate action to have this corrected.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007