Appeal No. 96-3717
Application 08/229,115
objective evidence to the contrary, we find that Solomon’s polyurethane medical tube is substantially
identical to that claimed by appellants and that Solomon’s polyurethane medical tube would inherently
possess appellants’ claimed properties in that it meets appellants’ objective of providing a tube which is
stiff enough to be easily inserted into the body and absorbs water once in the body to soften the tube to give
less pain and less feeling of physical disorder. Therefore, the burden is on appellants to prove that
Solomon’s polyurethane tube does not inherently possess the characteristics or properties attributed to the
claimed medical tube. On this record, appellants have not presented any objective evidence or sufficient
arguments to meet their burden.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16-22 and 25-30 as being
anticipated by Solomon. Since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, the rejection of the same claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Solomon is also affirmed. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
As for the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16-22 and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Lambert, appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection are the same as those made with respect
to Solomon. Lambert discloses a medical tube comprising a hydrophilic base polyurethane (HPEU) coated
with a hydrophobic polyurethane having a water absorption of 10% or less (col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line
7). Both polyurethanes comprise three components: an isocyanate component, a polyol and a chain
extender (col. 4, line 32 to col. 5, line 40). However, while the water absorption range overlaps with
appellant’s range of less than 5 wt%, we do not consider that the water absorption of less than 10%
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007