Ex parte LUCAST et al. - Page 6

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

          impermeable  films for the water impermeable backing layer 11               
          of Pawelchak.                                                               
                    Appellants contend that the combination of                        
          references is improper because Pawelchak is directed to an                  
          occlusive dressing which collects fluids rather than omitting               
          them through moisture-vapor transmission.  Appellants,                      
          however, have presented no objective evidence concerning the                
          overall vapor transmission properties of Pawelchak’s dressing,              
          nor any evidence that high vapor transmission properties are                
          not desired for an occlusive bandage as described by                        
          Pawelchak.  Further, although appellants characterize the                   
          claimed dressing as one which is “dry because it does not                   
          collect fluids,” we observe that appellants use a high                      
          moisture transmission layer which absorbs up to 100% of its                 
          own weight in water.  See the specification at page 11, lines               
          21-32.  In short, we cannot subscribe to appellants’ argument               
          that the claimed invention (or the adhesive composite of the                
          Heinecke reference) functions in an “opposite manner” from                  
          that of the Pawelchak adhesive composite.                                   


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007