Appeal No. 1997-3712
Application 08/474,340
laminated plastic-aluminum foil (col. 3, lines 24-26). The
sutures “may be natural or synthetic in origin and be
absorbable or non-absorbable” (col. 8, lines 11-12).
The examiner argues that Glick discloses most of the
elements of the claims but does not disclose that the inner
pouch is peelable, and that the teaching by Miller of using
either a tearable or peelable pouch to hold a suture retainer
would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the
art, making Glick’s inner foil laminate pouch peelable to
facilitate ease of use (final rejection, page 4). The
examiner argues that Glick’s teaching (col. 16, lines 5-9)
that the suture and retainer could be in a single strippable
envelope directly undercuts appellants’ argument that where7
there are double envelopes, the art would not have recognized
that the inner one could be strippable (answer, page 10).8
7 The disclosure relied upon by the examiner does not
state that the single envelope is strippable.
8The examiner argues as though the limitations of
appellants’ claim 81 are not met unless Glick’s inner envelope
is strippable. Claim 81, however, is open to a peelable,
substantially moisture-impervious outer pouch which contains
therein a sealed inner envelope having therein a retainer with
a synthetic absorbable suture within it. The sealed pocket in
the pouch would be accessible by peeling, and the retainer
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007