Appeal 2007-1812
Application 10/759,713
Thus, claim 1 is directed to a sling holder comprising a strap having
two ends, a fastener for coupling the ends, and a pocket attachable to the
strap. Claim 1 also requires that the fastener be “positioned completely
within the perimeter of [the] strap.”
Claim 16 is directed to a sling holder comprising two straps and an
attachable pocket. One strap (the “second strap”) is attachable at one end to
the other strap (the “first strap”). The sling holder of claim 16 also
comprises a single fastener for coupling the other end of the second strap to
the first strap, the fastener being “positioned completely within the perimeter
of” the two straps.
2. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Noppel US 5,069,208 Dec. 3, 1991
Allen US 5,507,794 Apr. 16, 1996
Silverberg US 5,823,984 Oct. 20, 1998
Edwards US 6,440,159 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
3. ANTICIPATION
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Edwards. The Examiner relies on Edwards for disclosing all of the
limitations of claim 1 (Answer 4). With regard to the recitation of “a single
fastener,” the Examiner argues that “[c]laim 1 uses the transitional phrase
‘comprising’, which is . . . inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude
additional, unrecited elements” (id. at 11).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation. Edwards describes a “wrap for applying thermal therapy to a
patient ha[ving] a therapy section with a pocket sized to receive and retain a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013