Appeal No. 95-0733
Application 07/887,534
For essentially the reasons well stated in the
Answer, we affirm the rejection.
Pawelchak, according to the examiner, discloses an
occlusive dressing adhesive composite which corresponds iden-
tically to the claimed adhesive composite with the exception
that Pawelchak’s specifically described outer film 11 (Figures
1, 2 and 7), described as an impermeable film “which serves to
protect the exposed surface” of Pawelchak’s dressing “from
contamination by water or soil” (column 2, lines 25-28), may
not inherently
exhibit a “tensile strength when wet that is no more than 30%
less than the tensile strength of the backing material when
dry when one mil thick” as required by the appealed claims,
and may not have a moisture transmission rate adequate to
provide Pawelchak’s overall composite with a moisture vapor
transmis- sion rate as high as the claimed composite. In
support of the examiner’s position, the examiner found that
Pawelchak’s foam layer 12 and adhesive layers 13 and 14 are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007