Appeal No. 2006-1562
Application No. 10/720,948
to the foam being open-cell. (Column 2, line 15). Morgan
teaches that making an eye patch out of open-cell foam material
permits moisture from perspiration and wound exudate to
evaporate through sides of the foam material. (Column 2, lines
36-39). Moreover, Morgan teaches that the open cell foam
material increases comfort of the user and does not cause trauma
to skin (i.e. skin rash). (Column 5, lines 24 and 25, column 3,
lines 15, 16 and 21). Seemingly, it would have been prima facie
obvious at the time the invention was made, to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, to have combined Morgan’s open-cell
foam material with Arnold’s biocompatible foam eye patch in view
of Morgan’s express teachings as to the enhanced comfort and
breathability of a patch made of open-cell foam.
Claims 4, 5, 13 and 17 are all directed to using an
adhesive that absorbs moisture and transfers it from the
individual’s skin to the device so as to evaporate the moisture.
Claim 4 uses means-plus-function language (“means for absorbing
moisture and transferring said moisture”) that properly invokes
35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th Paragraph. The means-plus-function language
satisfies the three-prong analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181: the
claim language uses “means for”, the “means for” language is
modified by functional language (“for absorbing moisture and
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007