Appeal 2007-3575
Application 10/233,698
Thus, all that is required by the definition of “substantially contact
transparent” as defined by the Specification is that when the dressing is
adhered to the skin, that the wound or catheter site may be monitored
without removal of the dressing. That limitation is taught by Holman, as
there is nothing in the definition provided by the instant Specification that
limits how the backing becomes transparent. Note that our mandate is to
give claims their broadest reasonable construction. In re American Academy
of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims
that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellants reiterate in their Reply Brief that the Examiner has still
failed to present reasoning, discussion, or citation that the backing of
Holman necessarily provides the water to hydrate the backings of Holman
(R.Br. 3-4). However, as noted above, there is nothing in the definition of
“substantially contact transparent” as provided by the Specification that
excludes the addition of exogenous water to provide the transparency and
thus allow the wound or catheter site to be monitored without removal of the
dressing.
As to claims 77-83, Appellants argue that claim 77 recites that both
the first and second pressure sensitive adhesives are “located directly on a
portion of the first major surface of the backing,” which is not taught or
suggested by the combination (Br. 7.) Appellants assert that a review of the
disclosure of Economou, especially the drawings, “shows that only one
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013