Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 13
Application No. 10/244,011
that Carpenter discloses that the attachment is a strip of material (shaft strap 7)
affixed to the shaft of the cane. We hold that it would have been obvious, in view
of the teaching of the structure of the cane guard of Carpenter, to attach the strap
(7) to a crutch strut based on the common knowledge, as acknowledged in Hunn,
that crutches have a similar slippage problem when rested against an edge or other
surface.
D. Crusor
The examiner rejected claims 23, 25, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Crusor. The examiner determined that Crusor discloses a
cane or crutch with frictional strip attachment (26) having a length above the center
of gravity of the crutch when supported vertically from a curved surface (32). The
examiner further determined that Crusor’s assembly inherently can be used to
support the cane even with the bottom end of the cane resting on a walking surface.
Answer, p. 4.
The appellant argued claims 23 and 25 as one group and claims 26 and 28 as
another group. As such, we treat claim 23 as a representative claim for the first
group and claim 26 as a representative claim for the second group. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
With regard to claim 23, the appellant argued that hooks and loops of the
Velcro patch on the cane of Crusor do not create a frictional surface because the
hooks and loops will slide against a corner or edge. The appellant further argued
that because Crusor does not teach resting the cane against a corner or edge that it
does not meet the limitation of a cane shaft or crutch strut having “an exterior
surface for frictionally engaging an edge or curved surface to keep the cane or
crutch supported with the bottom and resting on a walking surface.” Brief, p. 13.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007