Appeal No. 2000-1313
Application No. 08/797,478
perforation to show tampering of the package" and appellants
do not challenge this assertion.
The examiner finds that Kurtz does not disclose a wound
dressing (answer, page 5). It is apparent to us that, in
making this finding, the examiner has overlooked the
disclosure by Kurtz in column 1, lines 7-8, of an object such
as a dressing or bandage held in the package. In our view,
one skilled in the art would understand a dressing or bandage
to be a "wound dressing" as used in claim 8. In any event,
even without the specific disclosure of a dressing or bandage
in the package by Kurtz, we share the examiner's opinion
(answer, page 5) that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to place a wound dressing within
the Kurtz package for safe storage in an easy opening sterile
package, as such a person would recognize a wound dressing as
the type of medical or surgical product suitable for packaging
in a package of the type taught by Kurtz, as illustrated, for
example, by Wardwell.
The only argument offered by appellants' brief as to the
patentability of the claims over Kurtz in view of Wardwell is
that the applied references provide no teaching or suggestion
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007