Appeal 2007-2294
Application 09/740,169
coupled to flexibly depend downwardly from said frame means,” as required
by claim 10, the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness, and the rejection is reversed.
Moreover, independent claims 1, 9, and 10 all require a harness means
to maintain a person in vertical traction suspension. As noted above with
respect to the rejection over Chitwood, that limitation has been interpreted as
being consistent with the structure as shown in Figure 8, which allows for a
vertical traction suspension position and allows the lower body to freely
suspend from the frame structure. Nelson teaches restraint means are
connected to the frame at the head and ankles or feet in order to restrain
movement relative to the frame (col. 1, ll. 41), to which a body strap may
also be added (col. 7, ll. 16-17). Thus, Nelson also does not render obvious
a harness means to maintain a person in vertical traction suspension.
Claims 2-6, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Nelson and Burton.
As Burton does not remedy the deficiencies of Nelson, the rejection is
reversed for the reasons set forth above.
REVERSED
Ssc
NEIL F. MARKVA
8322-A TRAFORD LANE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22152
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013