Appeal 2007-1181
Application 10/513,879
present in the air that could be detrimental to the reagents held within the
package. (Answer 4).
Appellant maintains that the two reagents within the Guadagno
package are separated and not mixed until the packet is burst by the user,
who at the same time tears open the package to expose to air the wetted pad
holding the mixed reagents. Appellant thus argues that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness because Guadagno fails to
disclose or suggest “air evacuation of the sealed package holding premixed
reagents on the absorbent material.” (Reply Br. 2).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s
contention, we find that the limitation of a “packet including a sheet of
absorbent material impregnated with a liquid solution that reacts with feces
to produce a color change when blood is present” is clearly taught by
Guadagno’s disclosure that the internal seal is ruptured and the reagents
mixed within the sheet of absorbent material prior to opening the packet.
Based on Gaudagno’s instruction, the user opens the sealed package only
after the reagents are mixed therein. (Finding of Fact 4). Regardless of
whether the sealed package is opened within seconds, minutes, or hours of
rupturing the internal seal (see Reply Br. 1-2), the claim limitation is still
met (Answer 6). In addition, Appellant’s argument fails to address the
Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to evacuate air in Guadagno’s package
upon sealing the layers of the package together. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 14 and 15 as unpatentable over Guadagno is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013