Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
of the hydrogel polymer (answer, page 3). The expansion of
the hydrogel polymer recited in that claim, however, must take
place in the structure in which the hydrogel polymer is
present. In the Pigneul structure, the hydrogel polymer
clearly is free to expand in the upward direction in figure 3.
In the downward Z-direction, however, the hydrogel polymer is
constrained by the padding (51). The examiner has not
explained how, regardless of this constraint, the hydrogel
polymer is capable of expanding in the downward Z-direction.
Consequently, the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation of the invention recited in this claim.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Raley in view of Pigneul
Claim 3
Because, as discussed above, Pigneul anticipates the
invention recited in claim 3, and anticipation is the epitome
of obviousness, see In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ
80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007