Appeal No. 2005-2540
Application No. 10/026,629
precede the applying step, the exact opposite of how the Goldman
article is utilized. Accordingly, we agree with appellants that
the claimed method would not have been obvious, within the
context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, from the fundamentally different
procedure contemplated by Goldman.
REJECTION (2)
In this rejection, the examiner applies Zafiroglu alone
against all of appellants’ method claims. Focusing upon
independent claim 13, we see that appellants’ method requires use
of a cooling article which includes polymer particles having a
specific cross-linked core/shell structure. While the wet
compress of Zafiroglu does include hydrogel-forming absorbent
polymer particles which have been crosslinked, Zafiroglu is
devoid of any teaching or suggestion of the specific core/shell
structure described in claim 13.
Moreover, the examiner has not provided a factual basis for
concluding that the specifically claimed core/shell structure is
inherent in Zafiroglu merely because the polymer particles have
been crosslinked. Accordingly, the rejection of appellants’
method claims based on Zafiroglu alone is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007