Ex parte LUCAST et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 95-0733                                                          
          Application 07/887,534                                                      

          materials which   “inherently exhibit the broadly claimed                   
          functional parameter requirements” (i.e., the vapor                         
          transmission properties) of the claimed high moisture vapor                 
          transmission layer b) and the skin contacting adhesive layer                
          c).  Since appellants have raised no challenge to these                     
          findings, we accept them as factual.  Compare In re Eskild,                 
          387 F.2d 987, 988, 156 USPQ 208, 209-10 (CCPA 1968).                        
                    With respect to the claimed polymeric backing layer               
          a), the examiner correctly determined that Heinecke discloses               
          polymeric film backings, such as polyurethane and HytrelTM                  
          elastomeric polyester, the same materials preferred by                      
          appellants for their polymeric film backings.  It is                        
          significant to note that such films are described as moisture               
          vapor permeable and liquid and bacteria impermeable.  See                   
          Heinecke at column 6, lines 1-10,   and the specification at                
          page 6, lines 1 and 2, and page 9,   lines 4-8.                             
                    Accordingly, the examiner contends, and we agree,                 
          that one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by an                      
          expected enhancement in vapor permeability, would have                      
          substituted Heinecke’s high moisture vapor permeable/liquid                 


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007