Appeal No. 2005-2690
Application No. 09/935,442
and thus the precursor and activator compounds are not “separately released” as
required by the claims. Column 8, lines 31-42. Appellant argues that, in Delmotte,
“mixing of fluids in each syringe occurs inside the connecting head.” Column 2, lines 49-
56.
Sawhney teaches coating medical devices with compositions that polymerize in
situ, preferably upon exposure to light. Sahwney, however, acknowledges additional
problems associated with use of fibrin glues coating medical devices, teaching they have
little flexibility or elasticity once their deposition is complete. Column 2, lines 29-31. “It is
believed that this lack of compliance (i.e., high elastic modulus and low elongation at
rupture) is an important reasons why seals formed with these and related prior-art
materials are likely to fail prematurely, especially when the area which is joined or sealed
is subject to deformation.” Column 2, lines 33-39.
The Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
based upon the prior art. The Examiner can satisfy this burden only by showing some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art would lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
An adequate showing of motivation to combine requires “evidence that ‘a skilled artisan,
confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed
invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in
the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361,
1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In view of the above, we do not find the examiner has provided sufficient evidence
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007