Appeal No. 2002-2319 Page 16
Application No. 09/129,197
end to the fingertips is longer than the distance from the elbow end to the front end of
the mitt section so that the L-shaped arm envelope is stretched from the elbow end to
the hand end and the front end of the mitt section engages the patient’s fingers to
thereby limit movement of the sling toward the elbow end, thereby permitting the arm
envelope to evenly engage the patient’s elbow, arm and hand substantially free of
localized pressure points, as called for in claims 10 and 19 and appellant has presented
no evidence that Blatt’s sling is not so capable.
For the foregoing reasons, appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us of any error
on the part of the examiner in rejecting claims 10 and 19 as being obvious over Blatt in
view of Christensen. Thus, we shall sustain the rejections of these claims, as well as
claims 11 and 12 which appellant has grouped with claim 10 (brief, page 6).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejections of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112,
second paragraph, are reversed and the rejections of claims 10, 11 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 10-12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are sustained. As a
rejection of each claim on appeal has been sustained, the examiner’s decision is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007