Appeal No. 95-4669
Application 08/044,674
Laurin, it is our view that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from Laurin’s
silence on the matter of water absorption for the resins used therein is that water
absorption is simply of no concern to Laurin. Nothing in Hoffman, and in particular
Hoffman’s statement that water sorption is important in the functioning of some
polymers, such as those used in soft contact lenses, overcomes this fundamental
deficiency in the disclosure of Laurin. While we acknowledge that Hoffman teaches
that the water sorption of polymers used as biomaterials may vary, and for some uses
is a very important consideration, there is nothing in Laurin and Hoffman, taken either
individually or collectively, that would have suggested to the artisan that relatively high
water sorption like that called for in claims 1 and 2 is important for Laurin’s purposes.
In this regard, we do not agree with the examiner that Hoffman teaches or suggests
that water absorption of 5% is critical in the field of biomaterials.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1 and 2, nor claims 3-5 which depend from claim 2.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 6 as
being unpatentable over Laurin in view of Hoffman and further in view of Pratt.
Although claim 6 does not expressly call for the water absorption of the second,
hydrophilic polyurethane to be 5% or more by weight, the ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand this to be the case in light of the requirement of claim 6 that the
second polyurethane is “hydrophilic,” and the definition of that term as set forth on page
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007