Appeal No. 2000-0298
Application No. 08/832,013
because there is no suggestion in Wood and Matejcek to use the
foam therein disclosed as a biasing means. We agree with the
reasoning of the appellant, and thus we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection.
Chung discloses that the bladder 40 is comprised of
resilient open-celled polyurethane foam. Chung also discloses
that this foam may be replaced with a spring or diaphragm or
other biasing mechanism. Wood while disclosing that
compressed foam which is expandable may be utilized for
insertion into the body, also discloses that this foam is soft
and hydrophilic. Wood does not teach or suggest that the foam
is resilient or can be utilized as a biasing means. Likewise,
while Matejcek does disclose a compressed foam, Matejcek
discloses nothing about the resiliency of this foam or the use
of the foam as a biasing means. None of these mechanisms
meets the limitations in independent claims 1, 10 and 13
requiring a biasing means which has an initial, relaxed,
compressed position and is expandable upon the absorption of
fluid.
As it is our opinion that there is no suggestion in
either Matejcek or Wood for utilizing the foam therein
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007