Appeal No. 2006-2826 Page 10
Application No. 09/993,907
Obviousness under § 103
Weissleder in view of Michaels
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over
Weissleder in view of Michaels5.
Michaels teaches laminate membrane structures that contain hydrogels.
Michaels, column 2, lines 57-60. The hydrogel layers can be treated with glycerin to
protect them from cracking when the membrane is dried. Id., column 16, lines 50-59.
The Examiner argued that it would have been obvious to have applied glycerin to
Weissleder’s hydrogel to prevent cracking when applied to the medical device’s
substrate. Answer, page 4.
Appellants argued that “Michaels discloses glycerin only as a plasticizer, and its
disclosure would add nothing relevant to the disclosure of Weissleder …, especially
since no suggestion or motivation to combine the reference teachings can be found in
the references.” Brief, page 10.
Obviousness does not require an express suggestion to modify the prior art. In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The
Examiner provided a reasoned statement explaining why the skilled worker would have
utilized glycerin in a hydrogel. Answer, page 4. We concur with the Examiner that it
would have been reasonable at the time the invention was made for the skilled worker
to have utilized glycerin in Weissleder’s hydrogel for its advantages as taught by
Michaels. Appellants have not identified a defect in this reasoning. Accordingly, we
affirm this rejection.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007