Appeal 2007-3575
Application 10/233,698
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Claims 65-83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Economou and Holman.
Appellants argue the claims in three groups, with Group I comprising
claims 65-83, of which we choose claim 65 to be representative (Br.1 6);
Group II comprising claims 77-83 (id. at 7), of which we choose claim 77 to
be representative; and Group III comprising claims 66, 72, and 78 (id. at 9),
of which we choose claim 66 to be representative.
Economou is cited by the Examiner for teaching an adhesive bandage
comprising a backing layer coated with a continuous adhesive layer (which
reads on the first adhesive of the claims) covered by strips of adhesive of
lesser adhesiveness (reads on the second adhesive of the claims) (Answer 4).
According to the Examiner, Economou does not teach “the backing layer to
be transparent, or the presence of active agent in the adhesive.” (Id.)
Holman is cited for teaching a wound dressing comprising an
adhesive layer containing collagen (which reads on a bioactive agent) to
allow continuous and constant contact between the wound site and the active
agent (id.). Holman is also cited for teaching that the wound dressing
comprises a transparent backing sheet to permit viewing of the wound.
The Examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide
an adhesive bandage comprising backing layer and two layers
of adhesives having different adhesiveness as disclosed by
1 All references to the Brief (Br.) are to the Appeal Brief dated October 16,
2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013