Appeal No. 2001-0599 Page 4
Application No. 08/555,198
disinfectants, it is preferred to use dyestuff medical preparations such as acrinol
or acriflavine, etc., furan medical preparations such as nitrofurzone, etc., cationic
soap medical preparations such as benzalkonium chloride or benzethonium
chloride, etc., cyclohexidine and povidone-iodine.” Column 4, lines 60-66.
Finally, Sakamoto teaches that “[t]hese antimicrobial substances can be used
alone or as a combination of two or more of them.” Column 4, lines 67-68.
“It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is
found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas
Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522
(Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]he description of a single embodiment of broadly described
subject matter constitutes a description of the invention for anticipation
purposes.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 970, 169 USPQ 795, 797 (CCPA 1971).
Sakamoto discloses a urethral catheter (an implantable medical device),
having inside and outside walls (i.e., surfaces) to which are bonded antimicrobial
substances, including antiseptics, which can be used in combinations of two or
more. Thus, Sakamoto identically discloses all of the limitations of the instant
claims. We agree with the examiner that Sakamoto anticipates instant claim 23.
Appellant does not dispute that Sakamoto discloses a urethral catheter
coated with a combination of antiseptics. Rather, Appellant argues that
Sakamoto’s invention is limited to urethral catheters because of its “requirement
for an ionic bonding step that limits the base materials to olefin polymers, diene
polymers or silicone polymers.” Appeal Brief, page 7. In contrast, Appellant
argues, the instantly claimed invention can be applied to a wider variety of base
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007