Appeal 2007-0195
Application 10/895,515
and linking element 11. In any event, it is clear from Liveoak's disclosure of
the use of the paddle 10 that the upper forearm of the user bears against end
region 26 and regions 22a and 24a of converging supports 22 and 24, while
an upper side of grip 17, in cooperation with cover 28 when used in a mode
where the user does not hold grip 17, provides support for the hand of the
user (FF3, FF4, and FF5), thereby setting the hand and forearm of the user in
a predetermined alignment, as called for in claim 1.
Appellant's argument that Liveoak does not set the wrist in a
predetermined alignment, by virtue of the flexibility of the device (FF2), that
the support discussed at column 4, lines 3-9 (FF5) does not preclude the
device from allowing articulation, and that, accordingly, supports 22a, 24a
are not "rigid or fully bracing" (Reply Br. 5) is not commensurate in scope
with claims 1 and 11, which do not preclude articulation or require "rigid or
fully bracing" support and preclusion of all movement. It is well established
that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
The final issue raised by Appellant against the anticipation rejection,
specifically with respect to claims 5, 11, 12, and 21, is whether Liveoak
discloses the claimed "paddle-blade position." Appellant's argument seems
to imply a 10-15 degree angle is required (see Appeal Br. 5 and Reply Br.
6). The claims are not so limited and the Specification does not define
"paddle-blade position" so narrowly. Rather, Appellant's Specification
appears to require simply a positive and acute rake angle (FF1), which is
shown by Liveoak (FF3), in the mode of use where the hand is inserted
through aperture 16 from the bottom side 32 (col. 3, ll. 56-60). We thus
conclude Liveoak discloses the claimed "paddle-blade position." As for the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013