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