Appeal No. 96-2833
Application 08/202,772
434; In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA
1972). The examiner’s interpretation of the relied-upon
disclosure of Fox, however, is incorrect. Fox adds his
treatment fluid to the hydrogel after the hydrogel has been
formed, thereby swelling the hydrogel (col. 2, lines 4-6). In
Fox’s example 10, which is relied upon by the examiner
(answer, page 9), ALCOSORB AB1, with which the other
components are mixed, is a pre-formed hydrogel (col. 4, lines
4-6 and table 1).
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in any of
appellants’ claims 1-12. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of appellants’ claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs, and under § 103 over the
combined teachings of Graiver and Fox, are reversed.
REVERSED
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007