Ex Parte ZACHARIAS et al - Page 6




         Appeal No. 2002-0741                                                       
         Application No. 08/935,348                                                 


         properties of the adhesive used to adhere the device to a user’s           
         skin are described.  Concerning said rheological properties,               
         appellants’ specification expressly states that                            
                   [i]t is critical to the article of the present                   
              invention that the adhesive have a rheology property,                 
              tan delta (referenced at 20° Centigrade), ranging from                
              about 0.01 to about 0.6 and preferably from about 0.06                
              to about 0.48 and most preferably from about 0.06 to                  
              about 0.40 at a frequency of about 0.1 radians per                    
              second and a tan delta ranging from about 0.1 to about                
              1.7, preferably from about 0.20 to about 1.5 and most                 
              preferably from about 0.6 to about 1.5 at a frequency                 
              of about 1000 radians per second.  [Page 24, lines 16-                
              24; emphasis added.]                                                  
              Based on the above noted express disclosures in the                   
         appellants’ specification that the requirements of the adhesive            
         used in the invention are stringent and specialized because of             
         the adhesive’s use in adhering the absorbent device to sensitive           
         areas of the body, and the clear and unequivocal statement in              
         appellants’ specification at page 24, lines 16-24, that the                
         specific rheological property set forth therein is critical, we            
         conclude that the rheological property in question is indeed               
         essential to appellants’ invention.  Neither independent claim 1,          
         nor claims 2-12 that depend therefrom, include this subject                
         matter which we have determined to be essential to appellants’             
         invention.  In view of this lack of essential subject matter in            
         claims 1-12, we conclude, as did the examiner, that a rejection            
                                         6                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007