Appeal 2007-3575
Application 10/233,698
asserts that sweat on the skin would cause hydration, Appellants argue that
assertion “is not supported by any discussion or citation showing that all
skin at any time Appellants’ dressing may be used necessarily provides the
water required to hydrate the backings of Holman.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in
original).) Thus, Appellants assert, the Examiner “has provided no
reasoning as to how the asserted result ‘necessarily flows from the teachings
of’ Holman.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)
The Specification specifically defines “‘substantially contact
transparent’ as used in connection with the present invention, as when
adhered to a patient’s skin, a wound or catheter site can be visually
monitored through those portions of the backing and pressure sensitive
adhesive or adhesives in contact with the patient’s skin without requiring
removal of the dressing.” (Specification 3.) The Specification teaches
further that a preferred film backing is elastomeric polyurethane (id. at 6).2
Holman teaches that a backing may be used, and that “[w]hen
hydrated, the water-permeable backing sheet normally becomes transparent
to permit the site of the wound to be viewed. The advantages available are a
see-through feature for the material, as well as adhesion and a reduction in
the rate of fluid loss from the wound.” (Col. 3, ll. 2-7.) Holman also teaches
that the backing may be fabricated from polyurethane (col. 3, ll. 8-12).
2 We note that the Specification teaches that “[a] description of some
backings that may be preferred for use in the medical dressings of the
present invention can be found in issued U.S. Patent Nos. 5,088,483 and
5,160,315, as well as European Patent Application No. 0 437 944.”
(Specification 6) Thus, while not relying on that disclosure in our decision,
we note that transparent backings as required by the claims are known in the
art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013