Appeal No. 1996-1934
Application 07/884,218
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-14, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 24-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 23:
At page 2 of the Reply Brief appellant states “Goldberg et al. make clear in
Example 4 that irrigation with the same (HA) solution at conclusion of surgery prior
to closure resulted in a detrimental occurrence of 80% adhesions of significance in
test rats.” Claim 23 requires a single application of the solution at closing of the
peritoneal cavity at the end of the operative procedure. The examiner did not
specifically address this issue.
Goldberg distinguishes between the “convention or prior art methods” which
administer hyaluronic acid solutions at the end of surgery prior to closing and
Goldberg’s invention in which tissues are coated prior to surgical manipulation.
See, e.g., Goldberg, Example 4, column 8. At column 8, line 65 - to – column 9, line
1, Goldberg concludes, “there is no observed benefit to the use of the aqueous
polymer solutions of this invention if used according to conventional or prior art
methods”, for example a single application of solution at closing. Therefore,
Goldberg teaches away from a single application of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007