Ex parte Michelson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 1999

08389077 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 1999)

Application for patent filed February 14, 1995. According to1
appellant, this application is a continuation of application 08/108,885, filed
August 18, 1993, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GARY K. MICHELSON
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,0771
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GONZALES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-8, 13-23, 27, 32-36, 40-46 and 61-64
under
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
We note the following errors in the claims on appeal: in claim 32,2
line 8, "said" (second occurrence) should be deleted; in claim 44, line 2,
after "member" (first occurrence), --and-- should be inserted. In the event
of further prosecution, the examiner should require correction of these
errors.
2
35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 9-11, 24-26, 37-39 and 58-60 have
been
allowed. Claims 28-31 and 47-54 have been withdrawn from
consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Claims 12 and 55-57 have been canceled.
Appellant's invention relates to an adjustable surgical
frame for supporting a patient on an operating table during
spinal surgery. Except for claim 27, the claims on appeal
have been reproduced in "Appendix A" attached to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 20). A copy of claim 27 is appended to this
decision.2
THE REFERENCES
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Heffington, Jr. (Heffington) 4,391,438 Jul. 05,
1983
Michelson (Michelson '943) 4,481,943 Nov. 13, 1984
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
3
Michelson (Michelson '892) 4,908,892 Mar. 20, 1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 13-23, 27, 32-35, 40-46 and 61-64 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Michelson '943 in view of Heffington.
Claims 8 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Michelson '943 in view of Heffington
and further in view of Michelson '892.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 21).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
We shall sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims
18, 20, 22, 27, 32, 35, and 44-46 based on Michelson '943 in
view of Heffington and the § 103 rejection of claim 36 based
on Michelson '943 in view of Heffington and Michelson '892.
We do not, however, sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1-7,
13-17, 19, 21, 23, 33, 34, 40-43 and 61-64 based on Michelson
'943 in view of Heffington or the § 103 rejection of claim 8
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
4
based on
Michelson '943 in view of Heffington and Michelson '892. With
respect to claims 1, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 23, 34, 41, 42 and 61-
64, we enter new grounds of rejection under the provisions of
37 CFR
§ 1.196(b). We begin with the new grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 34, 41, 42 and 61-64 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly
claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the
invention.
Claim 1 calls for an adjustable surgical frame having
means for cantilevering at least a portion of the surgical
frame off the end of an operating table (the cantilevering
means is described in the specification at page 17 as
including the pivoting legs 146, 148, 150 and 152). Claim 1
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
5
also recites a plurality of pivoting legs pivotally attached
to first and second frame members. Our difficulty with these
claim limitations is that claim 1 recites the cantilevering
means as if it were separate from the claimed pivoting legs
146, 148, 150 and 152. Yet, it is the pivoting legs 146, 148,
150 and 152 that perform
the function of cantilevering at least a portion of the
surgical frame off the end of an operating table.
Thus, it is not clear to us how the cantilevering means
and the pivoting legs can be read on the disclosed invention
without reading the cantilevering means and the pivoting legs
on the same elements or parts. Since the specification states
that it is the pivoting legs that allow the surgical frame to
be cantilevered off one end of the operating table, it appears
that appellant has claimed the same elements twice. Thus,
claim 1 and its dependent claim 17 are rendered indefinite by
the double inclusion of the same elements. See Ex parte
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
6
Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1703 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
A claim containing a means-plus-function element is
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if the
specification does not contain an adequate disclosure of
structure corresponding to the function of the claims. In re
Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (citing In re
Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).
Claim 1 further calls for a means for changing the
position of the pivoting legs relative to first and second
frame members.
It is not clear to us what structure disclosed in the
specifica-
tion corresponds to this means-plus-function language. With
reference to appellant's Figures 2 and 6-10, the specification
(pages 14-15) describes the pivoting legs as follows:
Pivoting leg 146 is identical in construction to the
other legs 148, 150, 152 so that they are
interchange-able. The pivoting leg 146 has an
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
7
extension plate 220 that receives a hex bolt 215 at
one end and an attach-ment post 222 that projects
perpendicularly from the other end of the extension
plate 220. The extension plate 220 is flat and fits
closely with the horizontal lower side rods 110, 112
of the side frame members 102, 104. In order to
loosen and secure the pivoting leg 146, the hex bolt
215 attaches the extension plate 220 of the pivoting
leg 146 to the bottom of the side frame members 102,
104. The hex bolt may be tightened or loosened by a
hex key K.
We can find no specific description of the structure for
changing the position of the pivoting legs relative to first
and second frame members. We do not know whether the means
for changing the position of the pivoting legs relative to
first and
second frame members is the hex bolt 215, the hex bolt and the
attachment plate 220 or includes additional or different
structure. For the additional reason set forth above, we
cannot determine the scope of the invention sought to be
patented by claim 1 and its dependent claim 17 with a
reasonable degree of
certainty. Thus, the scope of claims 1 and 17 is not clearly
defined.
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
8
Assuming the structure corresponding to the means for
changing the position of the pivoting legs relative to the
first and second frame members includes the attachment plate
220, which is disclosed in the specification as forming a part
of both the pivoting legs and the cantilevering means, the
attachment plate is recited in claim 1 three different times.
Such multiple inclusions of the same element also renders
claim 1 and its dependent claim 17 indefinite.
Claims 6, 21 and 34 are dependent on and, thus,
incorporate by reference all the limitations of independent
claims 2, 18 and 32, respectively. Claims 2 and 32 call for
an adjustable surgical frame having a plurality of pivoting
legs pivotally attached to first and second frame members.
Claim 18 calls for an adjustable surgical frame having a
plurality of legs extending downward from and pivotally
attached to first and second frame members. Claims 6, 21 and
34 further call for means for cantilevering at least a portion
of the adjustable surgical frame
off the end of an operating table. Thus, for the reasons
given
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
9
above with respect to claims 1 and 17, claims 6, 21 and 34 are
also rendered indefinite by the double inclusion of the same
elements. Claims 62 and 63 are dependent on claim 6 and are
likewise indefinite.
Claims 8 and 16 are indefinite because there is no
apparent antecedent basis for "said major posterior support
member."
Claim 41 and claims 42 and 64, which depend on claim 41,
are indefinite because there is no apparent antecedent for
"the side" recited in line 2 of claim 41.
Claim 61 is clearly incomplete because it is dependent on
claim 55 which was previously canceled.
In some instances, it is possible to make a reasonable,
conditional interpretation of claims adequate for the purpose
of
resolving patentability issues to avoid piecemeal appellate
review. In the interest of administrative and judicial
economy, this course is appropriate wherever reasonably
possible. See Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1993); Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
10
(Bd. App. 1984). In other instances, however, it may be
impossible to determine whether or not claimed subject matter
is anticipated by or would have been
obvious over references because the claims are so indefinite
that considerable speculation and assumptions would be
required
regarding the meaning of terms employed in the claims with
respect to the scope of the claims. See In re Steele, 305
F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
For the reason discussed above, we consider the
appellant's claims 1, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 34, 41, 42 and 61-64
to be sufficiently indefinite that application of the
references applied by the examiner in rejecting the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not possible. On this basis, we
will not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21,
34, 41, 42 and 61-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It should be
understood that this reversal is not a reversal on the merits
of the rejections, but rather is a procedural reversal
predicated upon the indefiniteness of the claims.
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
11
We will, however, sustain the rejection of claims 18, 20,
22, 27, 32, 35 and 44-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Michelson '943 in view of Heffington.
Michelson '943 discloses an adjustable surgical frame
comprising first and second brackets 10 and 12 (corresponding
to
the claimed first and second side frame members) each being in
the form of a closed loop and having a forward vertical member
14
and a bottom horizontal member 16, a posterior support member
24
(corresponding to the major posterior support member recited
in claims 18 and 32), a locking member 32 which is adjustable
(col. 4, lines 28-31) to a variety of positions and
interchangeable
(col. 3, line 53 to col. 4, line 2) with member 24
(corresponding to the minor posterior support member of
appellant's claim 32), a plurality of mounting rods or legs 42
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
12
extending downwardly from the bottom horizontal members 16 and
a plurality of rail clamps 44 for removably mounting the
surgical frame to a conventional operating table. The
reference also discloses that the height of the frame over the
operating table may be adjusted by varying the depth that the
mounting rods 42 are inserted in the rail clamps 44 (col. 4,
line 10-14).
Heffington discloses a patient support attachment for an
operating table to facilitate surgery of the spine comprising
an adjustable platform 12 for supporting the legs of a prone
patient, a pair of adjustable swivel clamps 18 carried by the
operating table, a pair of elongated support rods 15
adjustably held in the side swivel clamps, a support panel 14
for the buttocks and thighs of a patient disposed between said
support rods, and a second pair of opposite side adjustable
swivel clamps 18 carried by the support panel for the buttocks
and thighs and being adjustably engaged with the support rods
and the support panel. The support rods are provided with
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
13
intermediate lateral offsets 16 whereby the rods can be
rotationally adjusted to fit operating tables of different
widths (col. 2, lines 58-64).
The examiner finds correspondence between the structure
disclosed in Michelson '943 and appellant's claims 18 and 32,
except for the pivoting legs. It is the examiner's position
that
Heffington, Jr. teaches that the problem of fitting
surgical supports to operating tables of different
widths was known in the art and a solution to this
problem was to provide the frame with pivotal
mounting rods . . . . From the teaching in
Heffington, Jr., it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to substitute the pivoting rods
shown in Heffington, Jr. for the mounting rods
disclosed in Michelson . . . . (Answer, page 5)
It is the appellant's position that neither reference
shows pivoting legs attached to a surgical frame and that
Heffington's support rods are attached to a padded buttocks
support, not to a surgical frame as recited in the independent
claims.
We do not find appellant's argument to be persuasive.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
14
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1881). Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See
In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1986). We view appellant's argument as an attack
on Heffington individually.
We agree that Heffington does not show the support rods
15 attached to a frame on which buttocks support panels are
mounted. However, Michelson '943 clearly shows a plurality of
mounting rods or legs 42 extending downwardly from the bottom
horizontal members 16 of a frame on which buttocks support
panels are mounted. The examiner cited Heffington as evidence
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellant's invention to substitute
support rods having lateral off-sets for the straight rods or
legs 42 taught by
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
We observe that the preamble of independent claim 18 is inconsistent3
with the body of that claim. That is, the preamble sets forth "[a]n
adjustable surgical frame" whereas the body of the claim, in addition to
setting forth details of the adjustable surgical frame, also sets forth a
"plurality of universal rail clamps." Accordingly, we interpret independent
claim 18 to be directed to the combination of an adjustable surgical frame and
a plurality of universal rail clamps.
15
Michelson '943 and to mount the support rods on the brackets
10
and 12 shown in Michelson '943 using swivel clamps as taught
by Heffington. The motivation for modifying Michelson '943 in
such a manner is found in Heffington's teaching that the use
of
rotatably adjustable support rods provided with intermediate
lateral offsets can be used to mount patient supports to
operating tables of different widths.
With regard to the "plurality of universal rail clamps"
recited in claim 18, we note that no specific structure of3
the clamps is recited for performing the function of
"removably mounting the surgical frame to a variety of
conventional operating tables having different widths and
different sized side rails." Accordingly, we agree with the
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
16
examiner that the limitation is met by the clamps 18 shown in
Heffington, since the clamps disclosed by the reference are
clearly capable of being mounted to a variety of conventional
operating tables having different widths and different sized
side rails, i.e., side rails having different lengths.
In view of the above, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 18 and 32.
Claims 20, 22 and 27 (dependent on claim 18) and claims
35, 44, 45 and 46 (dependent directly or indirectly on claim
32) have not been separately argued by appellant as required
in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(1996). Accordingly, we have
determined that these claims must be treated as standing or
falling with their respective independent claim. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Thus, it follows that the examiner's rejection of
claims 20, 22, 27, 35, 44, 45 and 46 is also affirmed.
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Michelson '943 in view
of Heffington and further in view of Michelson '892.
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
The means for adjusting the height of the surgical frame relative to4
the surface of an operating table is actually found in claim 35 from which
claim 36 depends.
17
Claim 36 depends from claim 35 (which depends from claim
32) and further calls for a pair of lateral support panels
extending from the major posterior support member. Appellant,
in addition to arguing that the limitations of claim 32 are
not taught or
suggested by the applied references, also argues (Brief, pages
15
and 16) that none of the references disclose means for
adjusting
the height of the surgical frame relative to the surface of an
operating table as recited in claim 36.4
We have already considered and found unpersuasive
appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 32 above. As to
the height adjusting means of claim 36, Michelson '943 clearly
teaches that the height of the frame over the operating table
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
18
may be adjusted by controlling the depth that the mounting
rods 42 are inserted in the rail clamps 44 (see col. 4, lines
10-13). Accordingly, we will sustain the § 103 rejection of
claim 36 based on Michelson '943, Heffington and Michelson
'892.
We will not, however, sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 2-5, 7, 13-15, 19, 23, 33, 40 and 43 based on Michelson
'943 in view of Heffington.
Claim 2, as well as claims 3-5 and 7 dependent therefrom,
and claims 19 and 33 recite first and second side frame
members each comprising a forward vertical member, a bottom
horizontal
member, a top horizontal member parallel to the bottom
horizontal
member, a rearward vertical member parallel to the forward
vertical member and an angled rearward member connected to the
top horizontal member and to the rear vertical member, i.e., a
five-sided closed loop construction.
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
19
Michelson '943 discloses first and second side frame
members each comprising a three-sided closed loop
construction. The examiner's position is that the shape of
the first and second side frame members is a matter of design
choice.
Appellant, on the other hand, argues that the
specification identifies an advantage of the five-sided
construction over the three-sided construction shown by the
prior art, e.g., that the five-sided construction permits the
use of a shorter bottom horizontal member, but retains the
strength and stability of the three-sided construction. As
appellant points out, the specification discloses that, as a
result of a shorter bottom horizontal member, the appellant's
frame may be positioned closer to the end of the operating
table to provide the surgeon with improved access to the
patient's spine when the operating table is pitched at a 45E
angle (specification, pages 3, 4 and 9). Accordingly, the
specific five-sided frame construction solves a
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
Cf. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) wherein5
the court indicated that the rationale of "obvious matter of design choice"
applies when a modification is made which "solves no stated problem".
20
known problem in the art. Thus, we do not agree that the
examiner has a valid basis for asserting that it would have
been
an obvious matter of mechanical "design choice" to construct
the first and second brackets 10 and 12 shown by Michelson
'943 as a five-sided closed loop.5
With respect to claims 13-15, 40 and 43, each of these
claims calls for the pivoting legs to each include an
extension
plate 220. The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 6) that
Heffington’s elongated support rods 15 are of a unitary
construction, but argues that they "could" be made of three
parts.
The appellant argues (Brief, page 13) that there is no
teaching or suggestion in the prior art of making Heffington’s
support rods out of three pieces and that the examiner’s
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. We agree. In
that regard, the examiner has not cited any evidence that
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these6
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from
the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
21
would have led an artisan to construct the support rods shown
by Heffington as multi-piece elements including the extension
plates recited by claims 13-15, 40 and 43. It is our view
that the
examiner's determination of obviousness is based on
speculation,
unfounded assumption and/or impermissible hindsight
reconstruc-tion to supply the deficiencies in the factual
basis for the rejection.6
With respect to claim 23, appellant argues (Brief, page
15) that neither Michelson '943 nor Heffington disclose or
suggest a pair of lateral support panels extending from the
major posterior support member. We agree. Accordingly, we
will not sustain this ground of rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner’s rejection of
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
22
claims 2-5, 7, 13-15, 19, 23, 33, 40 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Michelson '943 in view of Heffington is reversed for
failure to establish a prima facie case.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the following
new ground of rejection is entered against claim 23:
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable
over Michelson '943 in view of Heffington and further in view
of Michelson '892.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 18 which we have concluded
is unpatentable over Michelson '943 in view of Heffington for
the reason set forth above. Claim 23 further recites a pair
of lateral support panels extending from the major posterior
support member. Michelson '892 is evidence that the use of
lateral support panels in combination with a surgical frame
for supporting a patient on an operating table during spinal
surgery was known in the art and described in a printed
publication more than one year prior to the filing date of the
present application. Based on the evidence in the file, we
conclude that it would have been obvious to a person of
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
23
ordinary skill in the art at the time appellant made his
invention to use the support panels disclosed by Michelson
'892 with the surgical frame disclosed by Michelson '943 in
order to provide lateral support for the hips of a patient
during surgery.
CONCLUSION
To summarize our decision, we have affirmed the examiner's
rejections of claims 18, 20, 22, 27, 32, 35, 36 and 44-46 under
35
U.S.C. § 103, but reversed the examiner's rejection of claims
2-5, 7, 13-15, 19, 23, 33, 40 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on
the
merits. In addition, we have reversed the examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 34, 41, 42 and 61-64 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 on a procedural ground predicated upon the
indefiniteness of the claims and, pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.196(b), we have entered a new ground of rejection against
claims 1, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 34, 41, 42 and 61-64 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
24
103.
In view of the above, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed-in-part.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR §
1.196(b) provides, "A new ground of rejection shall not be
considered final for purposes of judicial review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of
rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 CFR
§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or a showing of facts relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
25
(2) Request that the application be reheard
under § 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
Should the appellant elect to prosecute further before
the Primary Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(1), in
order to preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§
141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection, the
effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion
of the prosecution before the examiner unless, as a mere
incident to the limited prosecu-tion, the affirmed rejection
is overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner
and this does not result in allowance of the application,
abandonment or a second appeal, this case should be returned
to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for final
action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request
for rehearing thereof.
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
26
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART/196(b)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
27
Lewis Anten
The Law Office of Lewis Anten
Suite 411
16830 ventura Boulevard
Encino, CA 91436
Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
28
APPENDIX
27. The adjustable surgical frame of claim 18 further
including a rear cross bar connecting said first and said
second side frame members.