Ex parte HEE K. YOON, et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 96-1100                                                          
          Application 07/836,032                                                      

               Claims 1, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as              
          being unpatentable over Scholz in view of Baron.                            
               The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and              
          Supplemental Answers.                                                       
               The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in             
          the Brief and the Reply Brief.                                              
               Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, that the printing            
          material be comprised of a plastisol and a pigment, with a                  
          plastisol having been defined by the appellants as a mixture of             
          resin and plasticizer (Paper No. 16).  In the first of the two              
          rejections, the examiner looks for this teaching to Papp, which             
          is directed to the fabrication of a colored X-ray detectable                
          surgical sponge.  The examiner's position is that the claimed               
          subject matter would have been obvious by modifying Freeman, the            
          primary reference, in view of this showing of Papp.  However, we            
          agree with the appellants that Papp would not have suggested the            
          required plastisol and pigment printing material to one of                  
          ordinary skill in the art because all of Papp's printing                    
          materials contain a radiopaque substance, which would be counter-           
          productive if used in Freeman's orthopaedic bandage.  We                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007