Appeal No. 96-3886
Application 08/275,091
transform into a rigid structure whereas Johnson’s air bags
are inflated to provide an air cushioning effect. Given the
fundamental differences in approach of the applied references,
we do not think that the disclosures of Rose and Johnson would
have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the envelope of Rose, which is rigidified when evacuated,
might be successfully substituted for the inflatable air
cushions of Johnson. Instead, Rose and Johnson simply
disclose two distinctly different approaches to the problem of
immobilizing an injured limb. Accordingly, we conclude that
the examiner’s alternative rationale is the result of
impermissible hindsight based on knowledge gleaned from
appellant’s disclosure, rather than on that which is fairly
taught by the applied references.
In light of the foregoing, the standing rejection of the
appealed claims as being unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Rose and Johnson is reversed.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new
rejection.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007