Appeal No. 1998-1823 Page 3
Application No. 08/414,259
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
presented by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the applied
prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
advanced by appellants, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
All of the appealed claims require the step of dipping a
form covered with a layer of elastomeric material (casing) in
a solution including polyvinyl alcohol and a thickener in the
formation of a lubricious glove. According to the examiner,
"[i]t would have been obvious when performing the process set
forth in the primary reference, to so include an
alcohol/powder dip in view of the secondary reference for
providing a release coating as desired" (answer, page 4). The
examiner specifically refers to Kavalir (the examiner's
secondary reference) at column 4, line 43 to column 5, line 52
in support of the proposed modification of the process of
Talalay (the examiner's primary reference). See the answer,
page 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007