Appeal No. 2005-2540
Application No. 10/026,629
wetting said polymer particles with water through
said envelope during a sufficient time to swell them into a
gel mass filling up said bag, and
applying said article on said sore part of the
individual’s body maintaining an inner wall in close contact
thereon while allowing water vapor desorbed from said
particles to escape through an opposed outer wall of said
envelope.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Zafiroglu 4,897,297 Jan. 30, 1990
Goldman et al. (Goldman) 5,669,894 Sep. 23, 1997
(effective filing date: Mar. 29, 1994)
Bahia et al. (Bahia) 6,075,177 Jun. 13, 2000
(effective filing date: Jan. 20, 1994)
The following three rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness in view of Goldman taken with
Bahia.
2. Claims 13 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness in view of Zafiroglu.
3. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 20-21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness in view of Zafiroglu
taken in combination with Goldman.
Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to any of the claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007