Appeal No. 2002-0450
Application No. 09/142,814
Appellants argue their beads “have a non-porous coating of substantially uniform
thickness around said beads.” Brief, page 6. According to appellants, A[t]his is in stark
contrast Arnold=s invention depicted in Fig. 1 of Arnold.@ Id.
Figure 1 of Arnold depicts microspheres stuck together by a collagen matrix.
Arnold, page 7. Figure 1 of Arnold does not reasonably appear to depict a material
comprising a plurality of beads, wherein each bead comprises a porous core of a first
bioabsorbable material and a substantially non-porous layer of a second bioabsorbable
material around said core. Instead, the matrix of Arnold reasonably appears to link or
stick together multiple microspheres in a matrix, but does not surround an individual
microsphere or bead with a second non-porous layer to form a bead, as required by the
claims.
Thus, in our view, Arnold does not anticipate the material for use in a wound
dressing or wound implant, the material comprising a plurality of beads.1 The rejection
of the claims for anticipation over Arnold is reversed.
1 The Appellants also argue Athere is clearly no disclosure of unbound beads
having a coating of substantially uniform thickness around the beads as claimed by
Appellants.” Brief, page 7. According to the examiner, the amendment after final
rejection filed on January 12, 2001 was not entered. Thus, appellants' argument
concerning that the fact that each bead has “a coating of substantially uniform
thickness” and Aeach bead is unbound to each other@ does not correspond to a claim
limitation now before us.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007