Appeal No. 2004-0367
Application No. 09/733,359
There is no question that one of ordinary skill in the art
reading the Varn patent (e.g., col. 2, lines 60-67) would
understand that the resting hand orthosis therein is specifically
designed and configured to be a volar splint which engages the
inner or palm side of the user's hand, wrist and arm, and thus
would be the very type of splint appellant's dorsal carpal tunnel
splint is designed to improve upon. Nor does it appear that the
orthosis in Varn would in any way be capable of use as a dorsal
carpal tunnel splint like that claimed by appellant.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Varn.
Given our above-noted determination regarding the
shortcomings of the orthosis in Varn, and the lack of any further
teaching or suggestion in either Klotz or Cherubini supplying
such deficiencies, it follows that the examiner's further
rejections of claims 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
also will not be sustained. That is, even if the hand resting
orthosis of Varn were to be provided with a tubular resilient
roll that surrounds a lower portion of the finger strap loop as
the examiner believes is suggested in Klotz and the rigid plastic
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007