Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
discussed above, we find that Howes discloses and teaches an
amount of hydroxyethyl methacrylate monomer in the range of
0.3 to 5% by weight (page 6). The lower limit of the
corresponding monomer component recited in claim 21 on appeal
is “about 15%” and the examiner has not pointed to any
reference disclosure or convincing reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified the amounts of
hydroxyethyl methacrylate monomer disclosed by Howes. Hodgson
and Cole have been applied by the examiner to show that it was
known in the art to vary the parameters of production to
result in a desired MVTR (Answer, pages 4-5). Accordingly,
Hodgson and Cole do not remedy the above noted deficiency of
Howes. Therefore, we determine that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness and we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection based on Howes, Hodgson and
Cole.
In view of our claim construction above regarding
“about,” we determined that the 12% upper limit of the
hydroxyethyl methacrylate monomer disclosed by Salve did not
anticipate the “about 15%” lower limit for the same monomer as
recited in claim 21 on appeal. However, the amount of this
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007