Appeal No. 1998-2834
Application 08/659,858
18. Specifically, appellants argue that
the combination of Kao KK in view of Kenney et al.
would not teach or suggest [appellants’] invention.
The hot melt, pressure sensitive adhesive used in
Appellants’ invention has a tan *, through the
respective frequencies, residing inside the
quadrangle ABCD . . . . This limitation is
important when the adhesive is to contact the
wearer’s skin and especially the sensitive pubic
area. This important limitation is not taught or
suggested in Kao KK alone or in combination with
Kenney et al. . . . The examiner maintains that . .
. it would have been obvious for one skilled in the
art to select a known adhesive having the desired
property for placement against the skin. However,
this argument begs the question as to how would one
skilled in the art would know what was the desired
property or properties without referring to
Appellants’ disclosure. Appellants submit that
without the teaching of their disclosure one skilled
in the art would not recognize the importance of
selecting an adhesive having the specified
rheological characteristics when the adhesive is to
contact skin and hair. [Brief, page 7.]
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error on the
part of the examiner in rejecting claim 18. Kenney pertains
to a medical grade adhesive “for application to human skin . .
. [and] utilized in making surgical tapes for holding
dressings in place, adhesive bandages, adhesive dressings to
cover wounds, and surgical operating drapes” (Kenney’s
Synopsis, page 355). On page 357 of Kenney, we are informed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007