Appeal No. 2002-0679 4
Application No. 08/684,351
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejections of the claims under
§§ 102(b) and103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse both rejections.
We, however, agree with the examiner that the rejection of the grounds of obviousness-
type double patenting is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
The Rejection over Martin
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of
the elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
Martin is directed to an inflatable polyurethane bladder. See column 12, lines
11-12. The bladder is prepared by applying a coating solution containing a polymer resin
to a polyurethane film. See column 1, lines 38-42. The class of coating films applied
include, among a limited number of coating resins, an ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer. See
column 2, lines 58-60. An ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer is exemplified in Example IV.
We find that the coating solution, “contains a small percent of an attack solvent which is
capable of dissolving the polyurethane film.” See column 1, lines 45-48. We find that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007