Appeal No. 2000-0320 Page 13
Application No. 08/480,082
Our first reason for not sustaining the examiner's
rejection is that even if the teachings of Viegas and Thompson
were combined together as set forth by the examiner, the
resulting method and apparatus would not be readable on the
claimed subject matter. In that regard, the modified method
of Viegas would include the steps of (1) providing an aqueous
solution of chitosan and alginate; (2) providing an aqueous
solution of a complexing agent; and (3) combining the
chitosan/alginate solution with the complexing agent solution.
Thus, the modified method of Viegas would not include the
steps of (1) providing an aqueous solution of chitosan and a
complexing agent; (2) providing an aqueous solution of
alginate; and (3) combining the chitosan/complexing agent
solution with the alginate solution. Likewise, the modified
device of Viegas would not include a first sprayer containing
an aqueous solution of chitosan and a complexing agent and a
second sprayer containing an aqueous solution of alginate.
Our second reason for not sustaining the examiner's
rejection is that we find ourselves in agreement with the
appellants that the applied prior art would not have suggested
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007