Appeal No. 1997-1520
Application No. 08/365,464
true mechanism of bonding is not known." (column 5, lines 15-18, emphasis added). As
explained by the examiner, appellants have not refuted this expressed teaching of
Stephenson with compelling reasoning or objective evidence which establishes an actual
difference between the manner in which the dye is "bound" to the substrate in the appealed
claims and the manner of attachment or bonding disclosed by Stephenson.
Appellants also point to the disclosure of Stephenson that the substrate is useful for
"slowly releasing selected antimicrobial compounds" (column 2, lines 10 and 11).
However, this disclosure makes references only to the antimicrobial compounds, not the
dyes, and, furthermore, the slow release described is clearly a matter of degree inasmuch
as, as noted by the examiner, Stephenson also discloses that "[t]he antimicrobial treated
suture is resistant to leaching and retains its antimicrobial properties in the presence of
water or tissue fluid for a significant period of time to inhibit bacterial growth in and around
the suture." (column 1, lines 53-57). Also, appellants have presented no evidence on this
record that the Methylene Blue of the present invention is bound to the substrate to a
greater extent than the Methylene Blue of Stephenson.
We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-14 under §
103 over Stephenson in view of Ito for essentially the reasons set forth above. As
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007