Appeal No. 2002-0450
Application No. 09/142,814
what appellants have done, i.e., coat individual beads with a non-porous layer, is found
in appellants= own disclosure. Brief, page 9.
In response to Appellants’ argument that Silver discloses coating sheets with a
diffusion control layer and not coating beads, the examiner argues that Silver is relied
upon to show the use of coating on only one form of wound dressings or wound
material. Since the teachings of Silver, Berg and Arnold are within the same endeavor,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
achieving the same beneficial affects when coating beads according to Silver=s
methods.
We agree with appellants and do not find that either Silver or Arnold provides
evidence of 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.
The examiner argues that the motivation to combine references may come from
the references themselves or the knowledge generally available to those of ordinary skill
in the art. Answer, page 9. In this case the examiner relies on knowledge generally
available to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Patent examiners, in relying on what
they assert to be general knowledge to negate patentability on the ground of
obviousness, must articulate that knowledge and place it of record, since examiners are
presumed to act from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art in finding
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007