Appeal No. 96-1415
Application No. 08/088,625
held (claim 66), nor of placing a separated second dressing
component over a first contact component remaining on the
wound (claim 67). Thus, these claims are likewise not
anticipated.
The Sims reference does not supply the noted deficiencies
of Gilman ‘362, and therefore the rejection under § 103 is
also not sustainable.
Rejection (2)
We are at somewhat of a loss to understand the basis of
this rejection. The examiner acknowledges at page 7 of the
answer that Sims’ barrier (contact component) 20 “may not be
directly attached to [the] absorbent layer as would be
required to meet the present claims,” but still appears to be
of the opinion that such a modification of Sims would have
been obvious, notwithstanding the lack of a secondary
reference or other evidence thereof. On page 15 of the
answer, the examiner refers to Sims’ Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines
41 to 44, which state that a bandage (dressing component) 24
may be fixed to barrier 20 by a suitable adhesive bandage, but
this is not a disclosure of direct attachment. There must be
a factual basis to support a conclusion of obviousness. In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007