Appeal 2007-2294
Application 09/740,169
c) focused traction force means adjustably connected to the frame
means for applying traction pressure directly to a selected location along the
spine of the person in said vertical traction suspension position.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Burton US 4,205,665 Jun. 3, 1980
Nelson US 4,890,604 Jan. 2, 1990
Chitwood US 5,662,597 Sep. 2, 1997
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Chitwood.
Chitwood is cited for teaching a gravity traction assembly, shown in
Figure 1 of Chitwood, comprising a standing frame means and a torso
harness means coupled to depend downwardly from the frame means, with
the torso harness means being effective to maintain a person in vertical
traction suspension, and traction focusing means attached to the frame for
applying a predetermined amount of focused traction pressure directly to the
cervical region of the spine (Answer 4). According to the Examiner, Figures
1 and 2 of Chitwood “clearly show an adjustable inclined table . . . that can
be inclined at [an] angle of 80 degrees . . ., which would appear to be more
vertical than Appellant's inclined table. The harness means of Chitwood
would appear to place the user in an effective vertical traction suspension
position by gravitational force.” (Id.)
Appellant argues that Chitwood does not disclose a harness means
effective to maintain a person in a vertical traction suspension position as
required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11). Specifically, Appellant asserts that in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013