Appeal 2007-0195
Application 10/895,515
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 5,
6, 8, 11-16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Liveoak (US 5,842,896, issued December 1, 1998) and claims 4, 9, 17, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liveoak in view of
Richmond (US 4,493,663, issued January 15, 1985).
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed June 20, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed May 31, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed August 21,
2006).
THE ISSUES
With respect to the anticipation rejection, the following issues are
presented to us:
1. Are Liveoak's supports 22 and 24, relied on by the Examiner as
making up the linking element, adapted to receive the wrist of a user?
Appellant argues the wrist is received between the supports 22, 24 and
not by the supports 22, 24 themselves (Appeal Br. 4).
2. Are Liveoak's supports 22, 24 adapted to set the hand and forearm of
the user in a predetermined alignment?
Appellant argues that, because of the space (aperture 16) in which
Liveoak receives the wrist, a user can grip Liveoak's handgrip 17 in a
manner that causes the user's hand and forearm to be in any of a number of
random alignments, not in the claimed predetermined alignment (Appeal Br.
4). Appellant further argues Liveoak does not set the wrist in a
predetermined alignment, by virtue of the flexibility of the device (Liveoak,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013