Appeal No. 2006-2826 Page 12
Application No. 09/993,907
sentence spanning pages 10-11. This argument is not persuasive. Peng clearly
characterizes aminopolycarboxylic acid chelating agents as useful for the chelation of
paramagnetic metal ions in magnetic resonance imaging. Peng, ¶ 50. This is the same
purpose recited in the claims. Thus, we do not see merit in Appellants’ argument.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has provided adequate evidence to estsblish
prima facie obviousness. This rejection is affirmed.
Weissleder in view of Cleary
Claims 24-27, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered
obvious over Weissleder in view of Cleary.8
According to the Examiner, Weissleder discloses a hydrogel-coated medical
device, but not a hydrogel that contains substituted or unsubstituted acrylic acid
monomers or copolymers of acrylic acid and acrylamide units as required by the claims.
Answer, page 5. This deficiency, the Examiner stated, is remedied by Cleary who
teaches these polymers. Cleary, ¶¶ 13, 14, 68. The Examiner concluded that utilizing
Cleary’s polymers in Weissleder would have been obvious been “[s]uch a modification
merely involves the substitution of one known type of hydrogel composition for another.”
Answer, page 5.
Appellants maintained that the rejection was improper because Cleary disclosed
the polymers as useful for medical dressings, not coated medical devices as claimed.
Brief, page 11. They urged that the Examiner did not explain where the suggestion and
motivation to combine the references “could be found in the references themselves.” Id.
8 Cleary et al. (Cleary), U.S. Pub. Pat. App. No. 2003/0170308 A1, published Sept. 11, 2003.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007