Appeal No. 96-3886
Application 08/275,091
Rose with a plastic, protective support sleeve regionally
connected to his bladder as taught by Johnson" (answer, page
4). Alternatively, the examiner is also of the view that it
would have been obvious "to modify the casting member of
Johnson with an evacuable bladder having filling bodies as
taught by Rose in order to increase the rigidity and strength
of the Johnson casting device" (answer, page 4). Implicit in
each of the above is the examiner’s position that the devices
of Rose and Johnson, modified in the manner indicated, would
result in an apparatus that corresponds to the claimed subject
matter in all respects.
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 35, filed April 10, 1996) and the conditional
substitute reply brief (Paper No. 43, filed May 19, 1997),
entry of which was approved by the examiner in an advisory
letter (Paper No. 44, mailed January 6, 1998).3
3We note the presence in the file of another reply brief
(Paper No. 40, filed September 23, 1996) that was denied entry
by the examiner (Paper No. 42, mailed March 18, 1997), and a
petition by appellant pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.181 (Paper No.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007