Appeal 2007-0548
Application 10/815,408
holder.” (Answer 6 (again without citing any disclosure in Bowman other
than Fig. 2).)
Appellants respond: “It is not possible to tell from the plan view of
Bowman’s Fig. 1 whether or not the infant’s legs are supported by or even
touching any part of torso pad 40. However, it is clear from the section view
of Fig. 2 . . . that the infant’s legs are not supported by torso pad 40. Indeed,
the infant’s legs do not even touch torso pad 40.” (Reply Br. 3.) With
respect to the Examiner’s argument based on support block 50, Appellants
respond
support block 50 in Bowman . . . is not configured to nor
does it support the infant’s legs. Bowman Figs. 1 and 2 show
lower torso support block 50 in contact with the infant’s
buttocks. Even if it is assumed for purposes of argument
only that the infant’s “lower leg portion” contacts lower torso
support block 50 . . ., any such contact cannot reasonably be
deemed support for the infant’s legs in general, and more
specifically, support for the infant’s legs at the claimed range
of angles.
(Reply Br. 3.)
We agree with Appellants that Figures 1 and 2 do not support the
Examiner’s position. As Appellants note, Figure 1 does not disclose the
position of the infant’s legs in relation to the torso pad, and Figure 2 shows
support block 50 touching the infant’s buttocks (referred to by Bowman as
the “lower torso”) rather than supporting the legs. In this regard, Bowman
teaches support block 50 “may be useful in a surgical procedure such as
circumcision of an infant to comfortably support the lower torso when the
physician operates.” (Col. 4, ll. 63-66 (emphasis added).)
Given the above, we conclude the Examiner has not made a prima
facie case of anticipation with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-4 depend upon
claim 1. Thus, we reverse the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013