Ex parte LUCAST et al. - Page 4

          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                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007