Ex Parte Addison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

12373619 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/373,619 11/17/2009 Deborah Addison
60402 7590 09/19/2016
KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC.
c/o Harness Dickey & Pierce
5445 Corporate Drive
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SYS.1200P-US 1701
EXAMINER
HANRAHAN, BENEDICT L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
dgodzisz@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBORAH ADDISON, SIMON WILLIAM BAYLIFF,
BREDA MARY CULLEN, MICHELLE DEL BONO, WILLIAM PIGG,
MARGARET STEDMAN, and PAUL HOW ARD LOWING
Appeal2014-005810
Application 12/373,619
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Deborah Addison et al. (Appellants) seek review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 4-9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-005810
Application 12/373,619
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter "relates to wound dressings comprising
hydrogel-forming absorbent fibers, wherein the dressings exhibit reduced
fiber loss into wounds during use." Spec. 1. Claim 1, the sole independent
claim, is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A wound dressing comprising:
a water-absorbent fabric comprising at least
10 wt.% of hydrogel-forming absorbent fibers
based on the dry weight of the fabric; and
an adhesion-resistant, water-permeable
wound contacting surface textile layer that is
substantially continuously bonded to at least one
surface of said fabric, wherein the fabric comprises
at least 10 wt.% based on the dry weight of the
fabric of substantially non-water-absorbent textile
fibers and wherein the fabric comprises a mixture of
the hydrogel-forming fibers and the substantially
non-water-absorbent textile fibers, and wherein at
least a fraction of the non-water-ahsorhent fibers
are coated with silver.
EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Poccia US 2005/0054998 Al Mar. 10, 2005
GB '634 GB Publ. 1 430 634 Mar. 31, 1976
Brassington EP Publ. 0 251 810 A2 Jan. 7, 1988
Hennink EP Publ. 0 450 671 Al Oct. 9, 1991
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Brassington, Poccia, and Hennink.
2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brassington, Poccia, Hennink, and GB '634.
2
Appeal2014-005810
Application 12/373,619
DISCUSSION
Rejection I -The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and
7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a))
Independent claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "a water-
absorbent fabric ... wherein the fabric comprises a mixture of the hydrogel-
forming fibers and the substantially non-water-absorbent textile fibers, and
wherein at least a fraction of the non-water-absorbent fibers are coated with
silver." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
In the Rejection, the Examiner stated that "[t]he combination of
Brassington and Poccia does not specifically disclose at least a fraction of
the fibers are coated with silver" but found that "Hennink discloses a wound
dressing with hydrogel and incorporating silver in order to provide
antibacterial properties (Abstract and Col 1, lines 26-55 and Col 2, lines 42-
47)." Final Act. 4 (dated Feb. 11, 2013). The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious "to modify the combination of Brassington and
Poccia to include silver, as disclosed and taught by Hennink, for the purpose
of providing antibacterial properties at the wound site." Id.
Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner has not found a fabric treated
with silver much less that the nonabsorbent fibers are treated with silver and
the fibers are adjacent the wound contacting surface." Appeal Br. 7-8. We
agree with Appellants that the record does not support the finding that the
prior art satisfies the limitation, in claim 1, requiring that "at least a fraction
of the non-water-absorbent fibers are coated with silver" and that these
coated non-water-absorbent fibers are not the "wound contacting surface."
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner states to "only
rely[] on Hennink to disclose the coating of silver on wound dressing" and
states that "Hennink discloses applying silver to the exterior layer, a
3
Appeal2014-005810
Application 12/373,619
coating." Ans. 3. The Examiner further states that "[t]he combination of
Brassington and Poccia is modified to have the silver coating" and that
"[t]he silver coating is well known to have antibacterial properties and is
consequently used in wound dressings to ensure wounds are healed properly
with no infections." Id. According to the Examiner, "[i]t would be obvious
to put the coating on the exterior so that the antibacterial properties of the
silver contact the wound and help prevent infection." Id.
Hennink, as noted by Appellants, discloses "a wound dressing with a
three[-]layer structure wherein the fabric layer is provided between the
surface layers," which comprise "an elastomeric top layer and a lower
wound contacting layer of hydro gel that ... may contain antibacterial
agents, which may include silver." Appeal Br. 7; see also Hennink,
Abstract, col. 1, 11. 1-11 (discussing the "lower layer of a hydro gel" and
"polymeric top layer"), col. 2, 11. 3 2--41 (discussing the "fibrous layer which
is present at the interface of the two layers").
As argued by Appellants, claim 1 "is not directed towards such a
coating as employed in Hennink but rather specifically requires use of silver-
coated non-water-absorbent fibers in a mixture with hydrogel-forming fibers
in a water-absorbent fabric layer." Reply Br. 3. Indeed, the recited "water-
absorbent fabric"-which includes the "silver" at issue-is not, as phrased
by the Examiner, "on the exterior" (Ans. 3) of the claimed "wound dressing"
because the "water-absorbent fabric" does not contact the wound. See Spec.
Fig. 1 (showing fabric layer 2 and textile webs 3/4); Spec. 6. In contrast, the
recited "textile layer" is "on the exterior" (Ans. 3) because claim 1 recites
that the "textile layer" is "wound contacting." See Appeal Br. 16 (Claims
App.). Thus, even if "[i]t would be obvious to put the coating on the
4
Appeal2014-005810
Application 12/373,619
exterior" (Ans. 3 (emphasis added)), such a modification to Brassington in
view of Poccia would not result in the claimed invention.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and do
not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7-9, which depend from claim 1.
Rejection 2 - The rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The
Examiner's added reliance on GB '634 does not remedy the deficiencies in
the combined teachings of Brassington, Poccia, and Hennink, discussed
above (see supra Rejection 1 ). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1 and 4--9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5