Appeal No. 2004-0446
Application No. 09/747,601
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ewall in view of Scholz.2
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons set forth
below.
It is the examiner’s finding that Ewall’s method of making
adhesive wound closure material corresponds to the methods
defined by appealed independent claims 1 and 23 except for the
here claimed step of microcreping the non-woven fabric and the
reinforcing fibers. Regarding this claim distinction, the
2On page 7 of the Brief, the appellants that, “[f]or the
purpose of this appeal, claims 1-22 stand or fall together and
claims 23-30 stand or fall together.” Consistent with this claim
grouping, we will consider the obviousness issue advanced on this
appeal in relation to independent claims 1 and 23 since these
claims are the broadest and accordingly most representative
claims within the aforementioned groups. With further regard to
this matter and as a point of clarification, we will not consider
the appellants’ comments in the reply brief regarding certain
dependent claims because these dependent claims have not been
separately grouped by the appellants and therefore are not
deserving of separate consideration. See Ex parte Schier, 21
USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991) and 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007