Appeal No. 96-0928
Application 08/310,971
18. Accordingly, we must also reverse the § 103 rejection of
claim 18.
With regard to the §§ 102(b) and 103 rejections based on the
Wokalek patent, this reference discloses a hydrogel sheet for
covering a wound site. As described in column 3, lines 20-21 of
the Wokalek specification, a gauze dressing may be used to cover
the hydrogel sheet, and a compression bandage may be placed on
top of the gauze dressing. Based on this disclosure, the
examiner has taken the position that “the gauze layer would
inherently impregnate [sic, be impregnated with] the hydrogel
since the hydrogel is pliable enough to adapt to the shape of the
wound and it is compressed against the gauze layer also” (answer,
page 5).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that a portion of Wokalek’s
hydrogel sheet will to some extent necessarily and, hence,
inherently become impregnated in the overlying gauze dressing
upon application of the compression bandage, the Wokalek
reference is still subject to the same deficiencies discussed
supra with regard to the Cartmell patent.
In particular, the Wokalek patent contains no disclosure,
either express or inherent, that a selected water content in the
disclosed range of 95% to 98% is obtained by dehydration, i.e.,
by removal of water. Wokalek therefore does not meet the claim
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007