Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 17
Application No. 10/244,011
In the case of Crusor, the material that is secured to the cane (10) is a strip
(26) of cooperative hook-pile fastening material. Crusor, col. 3, lines 10-12.
Crusor describes that this material is conventionally fabricated of nylon. Crusor,
col. 3, lines 47-48. We find that in a hook-pile fabric, the hooks on the exterior
surface of the strip (26) provide an uneven surface. We find that this uneven nylon
surface would be capable of frictionally engaging an edge or other surface when
leaned against such surface, because the uneven surface and the hooks of the hook-
pile material would engage the surface to provide a force to resist relative motion
between the material and the surface. As such, we sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Crusor.
With regard to claim 26, the appellant argued that the claim is directed to the
combination of a crutch and a pad and that Crusor is directed only to canes and not
to crutches. We agree. As explained in Section II.C. supra, claim 26 positively
recites the crutch as part of a claimed combination. We find no disclosure in
Crusor of applying the hook-pile attachment to a crutch. As such, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Crusor.
III. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. Finegan and Shrader
The examiner rejected claims 8, 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Finegan in view of Shrader. The examiner determined that
Finegan discloses all of the claimed features except for the adhesive area being
provided with a removable patch. The examiner found that Shrader teaches a
flexible pad (20) having adhesive (11) on one surface to be connected to the other
opposing surface when the pad forms the tube and shows that the adhesive has a
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007