Appeal No. 2006-1960
Application No. 10/380,877
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not met the burden
of establishing that each and every limitation of the claims is
described, expressly or inherently, by Kato. Therefore we reverse
the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 9-10 under section 102(b) over
Kato.
With regard to the section 103(a) rejection over Kato, we
adopt our remarks from above, as well as noting that the examiner
has not established any reason one of ordinary skill in this art
would have modified Kato to use adhesives with a melting point
above 130°C. We also note, as correctly argued by appellants, that
there would be no reason to modify Kato with adhesives melting at
above 130°C. since the sterilization processes and drying taught by
Kato use temperatures no higher than 80°C. (Reply Brief, pages 4-5;
see Kato, col. 3, ll. 3-7, and col. 11, ll. 15-23). Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-7 and 9-
11 under section 103(a) over Kato.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007