Ex Parte Hopkins - Page 11



             Appeal No. 2006-2280                                                Page 11                    
             Application No. 10/244,011                                                                        
             the strap (7) that is securely encircling the elongate shaft of the cane is, when put to          
             the intended use of leaning it against an edge or curved surface, capable of                      
             frictionally engaging that edge or surface.  Further, the top of the strap (7) is                 
             secured about the cane shaft by a “rubbery O-ring”.  Carpenter, col. 1, lines 36-37               
             and col. 2, lines 2-5.  We find that the rubbery O-ring attachment to the cane shaft              
             would certainly frictionally engage the edge or curved surface to keep the cane                   
             supported with the bottom end resting on walking surface, as claimed.  As such, we                
             sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 12, 14-16, 19-21 and 23-               
             25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Carpenter.                                    
                   With regard to claim 26, the appellant argues that the claim is directed to the             
             combination of a crutch and a pad and that Carpenter is directed only to canes and                
             not to crutches.  We agree.  In order for a reference to anticipate a claimed                     
             invention, each and every element of the claim must be disclosed in a single                      
             reference.  We find that claim 26 positively recites the crutch as part of a claimed              
             combination, and there is no disclosure in Carpenter of applying the strap (7) to a               
             crutch.  As such, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 26-28 under                
             35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Carpenter.                                             
                   We find it necessary, however, to enter a new ground of rejection of claims                 
             26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter in view of                    
             U.S. Patent No. 4,300,742 to Hunn.  Carpenter teaches that the purpose of its guard               
             device is to enable a user to retrieve a cane if it is accidentally misplaced or                  
             dropped.  Carpenter, col. 1, lines 21-24.  Carpenter recognizes that “[m]any                      
             individuals who require the help of a cane when walking do not have the ability to                
             recover a cane when it is accidentally dropped or misplaced.”  Carpenter, col. 1,                 
             lines 9-11.  Carpenter does not, however, disclose attaching this guard to a crutch.              





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007