Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 9
Application No. 10/244,011
B. Finegan
The examiner rejected claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Finegan. The examiner determined that Finegan discloses a
flexible rubber pad (30) having an adhesive area on a surface being a hook/loop
type (34) to engage an opposing surface with hook/loop type fastener (32) when
formed into a loop. Answer, p. 3.
The appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. Brief, pp. 12-13. As
such, we select claim 1 as a representative claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006). The appellant argues that the adjustable grip of Finnegan has a tapered
grip which is adapted for use on a golf club. The appellant contends that the grip
of Finnegan is not adapted for use on crutches or canes because they do not require
a tapered grip. Brief, p. 12. For the reasons set forth supra in section II.A., we
find that the “adapted to” language used in the preamble of claim 1 is merely a
statement of the intended use of the support and is not a limitation of the claim. As
such, the appropriate question for an anticipation determination is whether the
adjustable grip of Finegan is capable of being used as the claimed support on a
crutch or cane. Although crutches and canes might not require a tapered grip, as
argued by the appellant, this does not mean the Finegan’s grip is not capable of
being mounted on a crutch or a cane and frictionally engaging an edge or curved
surface to keep the crutch or cane supported at an angle to the vertical with the
bottom end resting on a walking surface. As such, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Finegan.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007