Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
monomer taught by Salve is so close to the amount claimed that
prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected the
compositions to have the same or similar properties. Titanium
Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779
(Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1469-70, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Haynes Int’l,
Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573, 1577, n. 3, 28 USPQ2d
1652, 1655, n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the examiner
that Hodgson or Cole teaches that, for similar adhesives and
medical dressings, the control of MVTR was well known by the
variation of the adhesive ingredients (Cole, col. 4, ll. 23-
34) and the type and thickness of the backing material, as
well as the nature and thickness of the adhesive (Hodgson,
col. 5, ll. 22-28). In light of Salve’s discussion regarding
the permeability of the dressing to water vapor, it would have
been well within the ordinary skill in the art to have
controlled the MVTR of the dressing of Salve, as taught by
Hodgson or Cole, to yield any desired MVTR. Accordingly, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007