Appeal No. 1997-3712
Application 08/474,340
includes an adhesive layer between the thermoplastic layers to
permit the package to be peeled open, and that this adhesive
layer increases the thickness of the seal and the linear
distance of the seal (pages 11-12). Because both of these
features would increase the potential for moisture absorption
through the package, Kaplan argues, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have interpreted the applied prior art as
teaching that such a package is suitable for packaging
absorbable sutures. See id. 4
The examiner merely argues, without explanation, that the
Kaplan declaration, when considered with appellants’
arguments, does not overcome the evidence of obviousness
(answer, page 11).5
4 Appellants disclose that because their synthetic
absorbable suture is filled with a stabilizing agent, it need
not be packaged under the extremely dry conditions required by
prior art packaged synthetic absorbable sutures (brief, pages
8-9).
5 Appellants’ claims do not require any duration of
storage of the absorbable suture in the package. The
examiner, however, has not established that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led by the applied references
to package an absorbable suture in a peelable envelope for a
storage period which is sufficiently short that the moisture
permeation discussed by Kaplan would be acceptable.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007