Appeal No. 96-0928
Application 08/310,971
limitation that the hydrogel is partially dehydrated by removal
of water. Furthermore, any hydrogel which may become impregnated
in Wokalek’s gauze dressing will not absorb wound exudate upon
contact with the wound unless the entire sheet of hydrogel
somehow becomes impregnated in the overlying gauze dressing
before contact with the wound site. There is, however, no
express or inherent disclosure in Wokalek that this will
necessarily occur. Wokalek therefore does not meet the
limitation in claims 1 and 10 that the partially dehydrated
hydrogel is impregnated in the absorbent layer such that the
hydrogel absorbs wound exudate upon contact with the wound.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree that Wokalek is a
proper anticipatory reference for the subject matter of claims 1
through 6 and 10 through 15. We must therefore reverse the
§ 102(b) rejection of these claims based on the Wokalek patent.
We also must reverse the § 103 of claims 1 through 6 and 10
through 15 based on the Wokalek patent. Even assuming arguendo
that it would have been obvious to impregnate Wokalek’s gauze
dressing with hydrogel as suggested by the examiner on page 9 of
the answer, we find nothing in the prior art to suggest the
partial dehydration of the hydrogel by removal of water or the
impregnation of the partially dehydrated hydrogel such that the
hydrogel absorbs wound exudate upon contact with the wound.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007