Ex Parte GueretDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 1, 200810107410 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2008) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JEAN-LOUIS H. GUERET ____________ Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 Technology Center 1600 ____________ Decided: May 1, 2008 ____________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-63. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1, 45, 60, and 61 are the independent claims on appeal, and read as follows: 1 This Appeal was heard on April 17, 2008. Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 1. A treatment device, comprising: a cover defining a cavity, the cavity being configured to receive a part of a body, the cover comprising at least one sheet having a composite structure, the composite structure comprising at least two layers, at least one of the two layers being permeable to a solvent, and at least one adhesive matrix situated between the two layers, the two layers being permanently bonded to the adhesive matrix, the adhesive matrix containing at least one active agent that is soluble in the solvent, wherein, when the active agent is dissolved in the solvent, the active agent is released from at least one side of the cover, and wherein the device is configured so that the active agent is released into the cavity. 45. A method of manufacturing a device for treating a part of the body, the method comprising: providing at least one sheet comprising a composite structure of at least one adhesive matrix between at least two layers, at least one of the two layers being permeable to a solvent, the two layers being permanently bonded to the adhesive matrix, the adhesive matrix containing at least one active agent soluble in the solvent, the at least one active agent being released through at least one side of the sheet when dissolved; and at least one of folding the at least one sheet over onto itself, shaping the at least one sheet into a bag, and assembling the at least one sheet with at least one other sheet, so as to form a cover defining a cavity in which a part of a body may be received. 60. A treatment device, comprising: a cover defining a cavity, the cavity being configured to receive a part of a body; the cover comprising at least one sheet having a composite structure, the composite structure comprising at least two layers, at least one of the two layers being permeable to a solvent, wherein at least one of two layers is at least partially impermeable, and at least one adhesive matrix situated between the two layers, the two layers being permanently bonded to the adhesive matrix, the adhesive matrix containing at least one active agent that is soluble in the solvent, 2 Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 wherein, when the active agent is dissolved in the solvent, the active agent is released from at least one side of the cover, and wherein the adhesive matrix is between the at least partially impermeable layer and the cavity. 61. A treatment device, comprising: a cover defining a cavity, the cavity being configured to receive a part of a body, the cover comprising at least one sheet having a composite structure, the composite structure comprising a first layer and a second layer, the first layer and second layer being permeable to a solvent, and a first adhesive matrix situated between the first layer and the second layer, the first layer being permanently bonded to the first adhesive matrix, the first adhesive matrix containing at least a first active agent that is soluble in the solvent, a second adhesive matrix situated between the first layer and the second layer, the second adhesive layer being permanently bonded to the first adhesive matrix and the second layer, the second adhesive matrix containing at least a second active agent that is soluble in the solvent, wherein the cover is configured such that when the first active agent is dissolved in the solvent, the first active agent is released through the first layer and, when the second active agent is dissolved in the solvent, the second active agent is released through the second layer. The Examiner relies upon the following references: Shlenker 5,965,276 Oct. 12, 1999 Gueret 5,026,552 Jun. 25, 1991 JEX CO LTD (translation) JP 54-22300 Sept. 13, 1979 We reverse. 3 Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 DISCUSSION Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, 22-25, 27, 31-35, 37-55, 58, 59, 62, and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shlenker. Shlenker is cited for teaching a glove that is made of single or multiple layers or membranes, some or all of which are permeable or semi- permeable, as well as also having an intermediate layer, constructed in a manner that is triggered to release an active agent from the inner layer (Ans. 3). Shlenker is also cited for teaching an inner needle treatment layer that includes an adhesive (id.). It is well settled that to anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Appellant argues that Shlenker “fails to disclose or suggest, . . . at least one ‘adhesive matrix containing at least one active agent that is soluble in the solvent, wherein, when the active agent is dissolved in the solvent, the active agent is released from at least one side of the cover.’” (App. Br. 14.) Appellant argues further that Schlenker “does not disclose or necessarily require that ‘when the active agent is dissolved in the solvent, the active agent is released from at least one side of the cover,’” and also does not disclose “‘at least one active agent being released through at least one side of the sheet when dissolved,’ as recited in claim 45.” (Id. at 15.) According to Appellants, Schlenker discloses other triggers for the release of active agent, such as mechanical shearing or puncture (id.). 4 Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 The Examiner responds that Shlenker “clearly discloses an inner needle-treatment layer, which, at least in one embodiment, is a gummy coating, which is disclosed to be an adhesive (col. 4, ll. 53-58).” (Ans. 8.) Thus, according to the Examiner, Shlenker “does disclose an adhesive matrix situated between the two layers, wherein the two layers are bound to the adhesive matrix.” (Id.) We find that Appellant has the better argument. We agree with the Examiner that Shlenker teaches the use of an adhesive containing an active agent as an intermediate layer. But that teaching is in the context of a needle treating layer, and there is no teaching or suggestion in Shlenker that such an intermediate layer is sandwiched between two layers, wherein at least one of the two layers is permeable to a solvent. Specifically, Shlenker teaches that the “needle or sharp object treating layer comprises a gummy coating such as . . . an adhesive, . . . with or without an admixed biocide, antiseptic, or sterilizing agent, as an inner layer.” (Shlenker, col. 4, ll. 53-58.) According to Shlenker, as “the needle or other object pierces the membrane, the treatment substance tends to stick to it, coat it, cleanse it, or otherwise deactivate any harmful substances which might adhere thereto.” (Col. 4, ll. 59-62.) Thus, in the embodiment of Shlenker relied upon by the Examiner for the adhesive, it is not the permeability or semi-permeability of one of the layers that allows for deployment of the active agent, but rather, it is a mechanical piercing by a sharp object such as a needle. That is supported by Shlenker, who further teaches that as “an alternative to permeability, substantially impermeable layers may transmit the substance or agent upon rupture or piercing and completely contain the substances at all other times.” (Col. 2, ll. 5-8.) 5 Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 Therefore, while Shlenker teaches an article having at least one semipermeable outer layer, as well as an article having an adhesive layer inner layer containing an active agent, the Examiner does not point to, nor can we find, a teaching or suggestion in Shlenker of an article that has both at the same time. Thus, Shlenker does not teach all of the limitations of the independent claims, and we are compelled to reverse the rejection. Claims 3, 5, 6, 26, 29, 30, 36, and 56-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shlenker. The obviousness rejection over Shlenker is written to cover additional limitations of the dependent claims, such as using any shape that is suitable to the use, such as a bag or mitten, or incorporating polyamide power (Ans. 4-5.) Thus, the rejection does not overcome the deficiencies of the anticipation rejection over Shlenker, and the rejection is reversed. Claims 10-13, 16-21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Shlenker as combined with Gueret. Shlenker is relied upon as for the anticipation rejection (Ans. 5). Gueret is relied upon for its teaching of separating agents (id. at 6). Thus, Gueret does not remedy the deficiencies of Shlenker, and the rejection is reversed. Claims 29, 30, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Shlenker and JEX. 6 Appeal 2008-0002 Application 10/107,410 Shlenker is relied upon as for the anticipation rejection (Ans. 6). JEX is relied upon for its teaching the use of a non-woven fabric layer (id. at 6-7). Thus, JEX does not remedy the deficiencies of Shlenker, and the rejection is reversed. CONCLUSION In summary, the rejections on appeal are reversed. REVERSED lp FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON DC 20001-4413 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation