Appeal No. 2003-0280 Page 6
Application No. 09/382,120
anticipates. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
However, inherency is not necessarily coterminous with the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in the art. See Mehl/Biophile Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365,
52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
All the claims under appeal are directed to a medical electrode comprising, inter
alia, (1) a sensor; (2) a hydrophilic hydrogel member; and (3) an adjunct adhesive
member whose adhesive nature is either essentially unaffected by high humidity or able
to retain its adhesiveness in environments having a relative humidity of more than about
50%.
The examiner states that Montecalvo teaches a medical electrode having a
sensor (item 14); a hydrophilic hydrogel member (item 22); and (3) an adjunct member
(item 24) which has a pressure-sensitive adhesive coating (26) applied to its exposed
surface. The examiner believes that this pressure-sensitive adhesive coating (26) is
inherently both essentially unaffected by high humidity and able to retain its
adhesiveness in environments having a relative humidity of more than about 50%. The
appellant disagrees with this determination of inherency (brief, pp. 7-9; reply brief, p. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007