Appeal No. 2003-1851
Application No. 09/556,157
appellant’s claim 16 is open to the pivotal platform being
configured to any body part, but it must be configured to some
body part. The examiner has not established that Garman
discloses a pivotal platform having such a configuration.
Consequently, the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of anticipation of the invention claimed in the appellant’s
claim 16 and the claims which depend therefrom.
Claims 21 and 31
The appellant’s claim 21 requires a means for elevating a
lower limb of a person to a level permitting the transfer of the
person, with the lower limb in a reclined position, to a surface
upon which the person is to recline, and claim 31 requires means
for elevating a lower limb.
The examiner argues that “Garman ‘086 discloses the method
step of ‘transferring the elevated body part or lower limb from
the rest member’ to the elevated surface upon which a person is
to recline (see Figures 1, 2, 5-9, & 9A; column 5, lines 42-50;
and column 7, lines 5-19)” (final rejection, page 2).2 To meet
the appellant’s means plus function limitations, the reference
2 In this argument the examiner erroneously refers to the
applied reference as Garman ‘086. It is clear that the
examiner’s citations are not to Garman ‘086 (U.S. patent
no. 5,669,086) but, rather, are to the Garman patent cited in the
statement of the rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007