Ex parte SAMUELSEN et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1997-0496                                                                Page 2                
              Application No. 08/387,935                                                                                


              dispersed therein a discontinuous hydrophilic phase.  The hydrophilic phase is either water               
              soluble or water swellable.                                                                               
                                                     THE CLAIMS                                                         

              Claim 1 is illustrative of appellants’ invention and is reproduced below.                                 
                     1.     A dressing for dosing one or more medicaments and comprising at least one                   
              medicament containing layer and a barrier layer arranged between the medicament                           
              containing layer and a release face,                                                                      
                     characterized in that the barrier layer is a continuous hydrophobic phase and a                    
              discontinuous hydrophilic phase which is dispersed therein and which is water soluble or                  
              water swellable.                                                                                          
                                          THE REFERENCES OF RECORD                                                      

                     As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following reference.                      
              Horstmann et al. (Horstmann)              5,230,898                   Jul. 27, 1993                       
                                                  THE REJECTIONS                                                        

                     Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in               
              the alternative, under  35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Horstmann.                                   
                                                       OPINION                                                          

                     We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the                   
              examiner and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§                  
              102(b) and 103 are not well founded.  Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner's                       
              rejections.                                                                                               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007