Appeal No. 1999-0226 Page 10
Application No. 08/447,217
The examiner determined (answer, p. 7) that (1) Peterson
fails to teach the use of polyethylene glycol as the filling
material as claimed; (2) Schäpel teaches that polyethylene
glycols have been used as filler materials for breast
prothesis; and (3) it would have been obvious to use the gel
of Schäpel in the prothesis of Peterson so as to provide it
with greater gel stability and elasticity.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 11-12) that the gels
disclosed by Schäpel are far removed from the claimed "aqueous
solution of polyethylene glycol." Thus, the appellants
conclude that the rejection based on Peterson in view of
Schäpel is overcome.
In our opinion the combined teachings of Peterson and
Schäpel are not suggestive of the claimed invention. In that 5
regard, we have reviewed the disclosure of Schäpel and fail to
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007