Appeal No. 2002-2275 Page 6
Application No. 09/652,357
of claim 1 is not met by Shuster, for the claim requires that both the compressibility and
the hydrophilic properties be in the substrate.
Thus, contrary to position taken by the examiner, Shuster fails to disclose or
teach that the substrate comprises both the adhesive and the compressible and
hydrophilic material. This deficiency is not cured by Hughes, even considering,
arguendo, that Hughes teaches providing removable means to cover the adhesive area
prior to use, and that suggestion exists which would have motivated one of ordinary skill
in the art to utilize such a feature in the Shuster device.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Shuster and
Hughes fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection. Since all of the
remaining claims are dependent from claim 1, it follows that the rejection of those
claims also will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-19 and 22 is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007