Appeal No. 2005-1611
Application No. 09/808,812
unpatentable over Adam in view of Payne, and claim 9 is
correspondingly rejected over these references and further in
view of Lou.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer (as
well as to the February 24, 2003 Office action referred to on
page 4 of the answer) for a thorough exposition of the viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning these
rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of these rejections.
Gasper discloses a curable orthopedic support material
comprising a flexible sheet material impregnated with a liquid
resin system1 which cures upon exposure to a curing agent into a
resilient, semi-rigid support device. Because patentee’s cured
support device comprises multiple layers of sheet material having
both rigid and flexible characteristics, the examiner considers
this prior art device or composite to satisfy the claim
1 requirement wherein “a dimensionally stable geotextile is
bonded to a pliable geotextile.”
1Sinclair and Kausch are relied upon by the examiner as
evidence that Gasper’s liquid resin system satisfies the
requirements of appealed claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007