Appeal No. 96-4158
Application No. 08/404,242
However, even if we were to agree that Laufenberg’s
teachings would have made it obvious to replace Blott’s water
insoluble liner with a water soluble liner for the reason
stated supra, such a modification would not meet the terms of
independent claims 1 and 15. Blott’s orthopedic casting
article is in the form of a multi-layer tube, not a tape as
defined in independent claim 1 or a casting article comprising
a fabric sheet in the form of a roll as defined in independent
claim 15. The modification needed to meet these terms of
claims 1 and 15 would require a complete reconstruction of
Blott’s multi-layered tubular casting structure. Such a
reconstruction, however, is not suggested by the applied
references. These references also lack a suggestion of
forming the water soluble “liner” as a bag to receive the
rolled resin coated sheet as defined in claim 15. Lacking a
suggestion of these features, we cannot agree that the prior
art relied upon by the examiner establishes a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claims 1
and 15. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 19.
With regard to independent claim 27, the examiner states:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007