Appeal No. 2003-1359 7
Application No. 09/285,260
examiner reads the above quoted limitations of the last paragraphs of claims 1 and 24
calling for a change in the bending resistance of the forefoot leaf spring in response to a
load being placed on the artificial foot on Robinson’s prosthetic foot. In this regard, the
examiner’s comments on page 8 of the answer regarding an alleged change in bending
resistance of Robinson’s pad 78 does not suffice, as this element is not a leaf spring.
In any event, assuming that the examiner is correct in finding that the combination
of elements 14 and 78 of Robinson corresponds to the claimed first spring element
comprising at least one forefoot leaf spring, a position with which we do not necessarily
agree, Robinson does not disclose anything that directly results in a physical change in
element 14, the only element of Robinson that can reasonably be considered a forefoot
leaf spring, to effect a change in its characteristic resistance to bending in response to a
load being placed on the artificial foot which causes flexing of the second spring element.
Rather, Robinson indicates that element 14 is fabricated to achieve a desired flexing
action based on the individual needs of each user (column 5, lines 46-50; column 5, line
62, through column 6, line 8), such that the characteristic resistance to bending of element
14 does not change during use. On this basis alone, the examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1 and 23-29 based on Robinson cannot be sustained.
In addition, the examiner has not established that the arrangement of Robinson is a
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, equivalent of any of the embodiments disclosed by
appellants for accomplishing the functions recited in the last paragraph of claim 24.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007