Appeal Number: 2006-1684
Application Number: 10/341,038
received therein. Accordingly, we find that claim 1 is
anticipated by Varn. Claims 2-9 fall with claim 1.
Turning to the obviousness rejections of claims 11-19,
we note that Hall discloses what Hall refers to as a manual
gymnasium. Individual rubber bands are used to strengthen the
fingers. The strap G of Hall is not a splint and does not
hold or support the forearm and wrist to hold it immobile while
exercises are being conducted. The examiner states that it
would have been obvious to incorporate the finger flexion as
taught by Hall into the orthosis in order to increase finger
flexion
while wearing the orthosis. We find no teaching, suggestion, or
motivation for the examiner’s proposed combination in either
the applied prior art or in the implicit general knowledge
applicable to one of ordinary skill in the orthotic art.
Recognition of the problem is part of the invention as a whole.
None of the prior art cited establishes that finger flexion is
desirable while the patient is splinted. Accordingly, we must
conclude that the examiner’s combination of references is based
on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The rejections of
claims 11-19 are reversed.
Claim 20 is of different scope than claim 11. Claim 20
requires a buckle on at least one of the straps. Turning to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013