Appeal No. 2001-2516 Page 5
Application No. 09/286,047
In regard to claim 4, the examiner is of the opinion that the specific shapes recited
in this claim are an obvious matter of design in the art depending on the possible use.
We will not sustain the rejection because Ray does not disclose or suggest a hydrogel
core which is configured to have a shape in a hydrated shape which is different from the
dehydrated shape as is recited in claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
In regard to claim 12, the examiner states that the method steps of claim 12 are
inherent in the apparatus of Ray as presented above in the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection.
The appellants argue that step of reshaping the hydrogel core to have a second
shape in the dehydrated shape is not taught or suggested by Ray.
The examiner argues that the claims do not contain the language about
“reshaping” the dehydrated shape. This is not true. Claim 12 recites:
. . . reshaping the hydrogel core to have a second shape in
the dehydrated state. . .
In addition, Ray does not disclose or suggest a core which is configured. We
agree with the appellants that Ray does not disclose or suggest this reshaping step. As
such, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 12 or claims 13 to 18
dependent thereon.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007