Appeal No. 2000-0890 Page 8
Application No. 08/345,215
when view in combination with the teachings of GB’144 may suggest the subject matter
of claim 19 on appeal. In this regard, appellant and examiner should note that claim 19
does not appear to require that separate portions of the flexible package be composed
of porous and non-porous materials. Appellant and examiner should also take note that
GB’144 appears to describe a two-compartment package which contains a dry wound
dressing in one compartment (the Varidase (trade mark) material which is used in
GB’144 is described at page 1 line 25 of the reference as being a “dry sterile powder”)
and the second compartment which contains water (second compartment can contain a
water solution of a gel forming polymer, page 3 lines 28-29).
2. Obviousness-type double patenting
We make of record U.S. Patent 5,804,213 and U.S. Patent 6,406,712 which each
list present inventor David Rolf as sole inventor. We note that in parent application
07/913,151, appellant filed a terminal disclaimer in response to an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection by the examiner based in part upon the application, which
subsequently issued as U.S. Patent 5,804,213. For reasons which are not clear from
this record, when this application was filed neither the examiner nor appellant revisited
this obviousness-type double patenting issue.
Upon return of the application, the examiner should take a step back and
consider U. S. Patent 5,804,213 and U.S. Patent 6,406,712 and determine whether
double patenting issues exist and, if so, take appropriate action. The examiner and
appellant should work together and ensure that all related applications or patents have
been made of record and are properly considered by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007