Appeal No. 2004-1366
Serial No. 10/056,712
However, we do agree with appellant that Mah does not show
“straps”, as that term is commonly construed. We can find
nothing in Mah which can be construed as straps. Rather, the body
halter or harness 170 in Mah appears to be directly connected to
a suspension frame 44 (swivel assembly) via snap hooks 176 and
cables 174. No straps are evident in this configuration.
Accordingly, because the rejection of claim 1 is based on grounds
of anticipation, we are constrained to reverse that rejection.
We shall also reverse the separate rejections of claims 3
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 inasmuch as the secondary references
relied upon by the examiner (Colpron, Santmann) do not cure the
deficiency of Mah in failing to suggest the use of straps, nor
has the examiner advanced any reasons as to why the use of straps
in Mah would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
We affirm the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
since we find that Jones (Fig. 1) appears to show a strap
structure as a conventional component of a body harness for
supporting a patient. Accordingly, the inclusion of conventional
straps as a component of the patient-supporting body harness of
Mah would have been manifestly obvious, in our opinion, in order
to obtain the apparent advantages provided by straps.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007