Appeal No. 95-4669
Application 08/044,674
2, lines 21-22 of appellant’s specification. The Pratt reference additionally cited
against claim 6 does not overcome the deficiencies of Laurin and Hoffman in this
regard. In fact, Pratt’s teaching at column 3, lines 61-66 that “the polymer . . . may be
substantially hydrophobic in nature. . . . it is preferred to use polyurethane” (emphasis
added) tends to support appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would
consider the polyurethane polymers of Laurin and Pratt to be of negligible or low water
absorption (i.e., hydrophobic).
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Richard J. Rodrick
Becton, Dickinson and Company
One Bection Drive
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007