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.
OPINION
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007