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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007