Appeal No. 96-0928
Application 08/310,971
dehydration is undesirable because of the change in physical
properties such as electrical conductivity of the hydrogel as
discussed, for example in column 1, lines 41-44, of the Perrault
specification. In view of this teaching, we cannot agree that,
absent appellants’ own disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to intentionally remove water from
Cartmell’s hydrogel to create a state of dehydration, which
Perrault regards as undesirable. Furthermore, the Perrault
patent does not state that dehydration necessarily occurs.
Instead, this reference merely states that there is a tendency to
dehydrate. Dehydration, therefore, is not necessarily inherent.
In any case, Perrault contains no teaching of a wound
dressing in which a hydrogel impregnated in an absorbent layer of
the dressing absorbs wound exudate upon contact with the wound.
Thus, even if it were assumed arguendo that Perrault suggests a
partial dehydration of the hydrogel in Cartmell’s absorbent layer
18, the combined teachings of the two references still would not
meet all of the terms of independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Furthermore, the Robins patent, which was relied on by the
examiner for an adhesive coated backing in the rejection of claim
18, does not rectify the foregoing deficiencies of Cartmell and
Perrault. The combined teachings of these three references
therefore would not have suggested the subject matter of claim
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007