Appeal 2007-3575
Application 10/233,698
[Economou], and add active agent to the adhesive layer
contacting the skin and further replace the backing layer by
transparent backing layer as disclosed by [Holman] motivated
by the teaching of [Holman] that the presence of active agent in
the adhesive layer maintain continuous and constant contact
between the wound site and the active agent, and the
transparent backing sheet permits viewing of the wound, with
reasonable expectation of having dressing comprising
transparent backing and two layers of adhesive of different
adhesiveness that contains active agent in the adhesive
contacting the skin that provides continuous and constant
contact of the active agent to the wound and permits monitoring
the wound healing through the transparent backing.
(Id. at 4-5.)
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to
determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we considered the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness as to all of the claims, and the rejection is affirmed.
Appellants argue that independent claims 65, 71, and 77 recite “a
substantially contact transparent dressing,” and that as the backing sheet in
Holman only becomes transparent when hydrated to allow viewing of the
wound, it does not meet the above limitation (Br. 6). While the Examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013