Appeal No. 2002-2211
Application No. 09/304,393
Consequently, the process of forming the device describe by Figure 1 would meet
the limitations of claim 1. The prior art must be considered together with the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A reference need not explain
every detail since it is speaking to those skilled in the art. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, having
evaluated the prima facie case of obviousness in view of Appellants’ arguments, we
conclude that the subject matter of claims 1 to 6 and 8 would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Fabo. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We cannot affirm the rejection over Brassington. Brassington does not
describe a substrate that has a tacky silicone gel on both sides of the carrier sheet.
In fact, Brassington discloses the wound dressing has tacky silicone gel only on one
surface. The Examiner does not address why it would have been obvious to apply a
tacky silicone gel on both sides of a wound dressing. (Page 3, line 54 et sequential).
The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as proposed by the Examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner must explain
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007