Appeal No. 2002-2319 Page 14
Application No. 09/129,197
fingers to thereby limit movement of the sling toward the elbow end, thereby permitting
the tubular member to evenly engage the patient’s elbow, arm and hand substantially
free of localized pressure points apply equally to claim 19. It follows that we shall also
sustain the rejection of claim 19 as being anticipated by Ackley.
Turning now to the examiner’s rejection of claims 10-12 and 19 as being
unpatentable over Blatt in view of Christensen, we note that appellant does not dispute
the examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellant’s invention to include a mitt on Blatt’s sling, as taught by
Christensen, in order to keep the user’s hand warm. Rather, appellant argues that,
even if Blatt were so modified, neither Christensen nor Blatt teaches or suggests
constructing the sling of Blatt such that its length is less than the length between the
corresponding parts of the arm and hand so that the mitt engages a portion of the hand
and so that rearward movement of the sling along the arm is prevented (brief, pages
15-16). According to appellant (brief, page 16), a sling which is shorter than the
corresponding length of the arm would be undesirable because it would cause
discomfort.
Blatt discloses a sling in the form of an L-shaped arm envelope made of a
flexible laminate of a urethane foam layer and a brushed nylon pile layer which is
“slightly stretchable” (column 3, line 46). Blatt lacks a member secured to the panel
proximate the front end thereof for engaging a portion of the hand of the patient and
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007