Appeal No. 2000-1747
Application No. 08/784,237
surface which does not have a hydrophilic coating a solution
of agents which will combine to form the hydrophilic coating
along with an osmolality promoting agent (Brief, pages 2-3).
Copies of illustrative claims 1 and 7, directed to the method
and the device produced, are attached as an Appendix to this
decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
support for the rejections on appeal:
Lambert 4,585,666 Apr. 29, 1986
Johansson et al. (Johansson) 4,906,237 Mar. 6, 1990
Whitbourne 5,001,009 Mar. 19, 1991
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failing to fulfill the written description and
enablement requirements (Answer, page 7). Claims 1-3, 7-9, 1
and 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lambert or Whitbourne (Answer, page 8). Claims
1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Johansson (Answer, page 10). We reverse all of the examiner’s
1These separate rejections have been combined as one
rejection although based on the two requirements of the first
paragraph of § 112, as noted, for ease of discussion.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007