Appeal No. 2006-0160 Page 5
Application No. 10/029,818
steps directed to the provision of disclosed properties of an article used in the method
disclosed in appellant’s specification. In this case, appellant’s specification (e.g., page
2) was sufficiently clear in its disclosure that the strips of the adhesive bandage
extending from the gauze pad are “adhesive strips” (i.e., strips having adhesive on one
surface thereof) to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the laterally extending
strips have adhesive deposit applied to at least one surface thereof. Inasmuch as the
claim is not specific to the manner in which such adhesive deposit is applied thereto, the
subject matter of the claim finds full support in appellant’s application as filed. The
rejection is not sustained.
We turn our attention next to the rejection of the claim as being unpatentable
over Vesey in view of Arginsky and Amen-Ra A. While appellant’s brief illustrates an
inexplicable confusion with regard to the basis (i.e., obviousness) of the prior art
rejection, appellant’s brief (page 4) correctly recognizes the deficiency in the applied
prior art of any teaching or suggestion to apply an adhesive deposit when in a viscous
state on the display surface of the Vesey bandage, flowing said adhesive deposit into
the venting openings of said display surface, as called for in appellant’s claim.
Vesey discloses a kit containing components for making decorated adhesive
bandages. The kit contains one or more adhesive bandages, of the type described by
appellant, comprising a backing strip 2, a layer of adhesive 3 on the body-contacting
surface thereof, an absorbent pad 4 and a pair of release tabs 5, 6. According to Vesey
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007