Appeal Number: 2006-1684
Application Number: 10/341,038
stand or fall with independent claim 11. Although not argued
separately, claim 20 is of a different scope than claims 11-19.
Accordingly, we will consider this claim separately,
hereinbelow.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review we have determined that claim 1 is
anticipated by Varn under section 102. The rejection of this
claim is sustained. Claims 2-9 fall with claim 1. The
rejection of claims 11-19 as unpatentable under section 103 is
not sustained. Lastly, the rejection of claim 20 under section
103 is sustained. Our reasons follow.
We find that Varn discloses a substantially rigid contoured
splint 12 with a forearm and wrist portion 18 adapted to fit on
and receive the dorsal portion of the forearm and wrist of a
patient 54. We further find that Varn discloses straps 38, 40,
42 to secure the orthosis to the patent and to prevent finger
and wrist extensions.
Neither the appellant nor the examiner expressly construes
the claim language of claim 1. In our view the patentability of
claim 1 turns on the construction of the expression “a finger
portion spaced forwardly from said wrist portion to receive
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013