Appeal No. 96-3886
Application 08/275,091
together by hook and loop fasteners 50, 52, 54 for adjusting
the position of the shell members relative to the limb, the
fact remains that there is no apparent need for incorporating
either the separate shell-like construction or hook and loop
fastening means arrangement of Johnson in Rose so as to arrive
at the subject matter of the appealed claims.
The examiner’s alternative rationale based on Johnson as
the starting point of the rejection also is not well taken. A
comparison of the discussion at col. 9, line 33 - col. 10,
line 3
of Rose and the discussion at page 7, lines 2-67 of Johnson
makes clear that Johnson and Rose differ fundamentally in the
way in which they immobilize an injured limb. In particular,
the "indirect abutting engagement" of Johnson’s shell members
(page 7, lines 52-64) causes the shell members of Johnson to
cooperate with the injured limb in a way that Rose’s outer
sleeve simply cannot duplicate. Also, the envelope 123, 124
of Rose and the air bags 30 of Johnson are fundamentally
different in operation in that Rose’s bladder is evacuated to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007