Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
Appellant argues that because Pigneul pushes the hydrogel
polymer particles toward the bottom of the apertures, the
hydrogel polymer cannot be freestanding (revised brief, page
5). With respect to the structure recited in claim 3,
however, appellant discloses that the hydrogel polymer is
freestanding if it is capable of expanding in the Z-direction
(specification, page 13, lines 24-30). Although, as argued by
appellant (reply brief, page 2), the hydrogel polymer is at
least partially set within the mass of fibers (col. 2, lines
56-60), figure 3 of Pigneul clearly indicates that the
hydrogel polymer is capable of expanding in the upward
Z-direction without constraint from the substrate.
Accordingly, we find that the invention recited in
appellant’s claim 3 is anticipated by Pigneul. We therefore
affirm the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 13
Claim 13 requires that the hydrogel polymer is capable of
expanding in both senses of the Z-direction without constraint
from the substrate upon imbibing liquids.
The examiner argues that claim 13 merely recites a
property
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007