Appeal No. 2006-1562
Application No. 10/720,948
transferring said moisture”), and the “means for” language is
not modified by sufficient structure (or acts) for achieving the
specified function. Because § 112, 6th Paragraph is properly
invoked, we look to Appellant’s specification to determine what
structures and equivalents thereof correspond to the “means for
absorbing and transferring said moisture” language. The only
disclosed corresponding structure is a hydrocolloidal material.
(Specification, ¶ [0021], [0024]). As such claim 4 is construed
to require a hydrocolloidal material or an equivalent thereof.
Like claim 4, claims 5, 13 and 17 require a hydrocolloid as
the moisture absorbing material. Arnold teaches using an
adhesive to attach her patch to the user. (Column 3, lines
34-39). Appellant concedes that Morgan teaches using a
hydrocolloidal adhesive material. (Brief, page 15). Morgan’s
hydrocolloidal adhesive wicks moisture from the user’s skin
through the adhesive and to the open cell foam patch for
evaporation therefrom. (Column 2, lines 29-39). Moreover,
Morgan teaches that using such a hydrocolloidal adhesive
prevents the adhesive from being weakened by sweat or other
moisture and, thereby, increases the comfort of the user.
(Column 4, lines 32-38, column 5, lines 24 and 25). Seemingly,
it would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007