Appeal No. 96-3923
Application 08/309,790
cannot be ignored as the examiner apparently has done. See,
e.g., In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328, 162 USPQ 102, 104
(CCPA 1969).
The examiner has merely relied on Rose for the teaching
of an aerosol device and on Ray for the teaching of a
dispenser (which dispenses nicotine). In any event, we have
carefully reviewed the teachings of Rose and Ray and find
nothing in the combined disclosures of Fuller and either Rose
or Ray which would fairly suggest the method set forth in
independent claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claims 1 and 5-7 based on the combined teachings of
Fuller and Rose and claims 1-4 based on the combined teachings
of Fuller and Ray.
Considering last the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 8 and 12-14 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view
of Rose and claims 8-11 as being unpatentable over Fuller in
view of Ray, we initially note that each of these claims is
directed to a device for reducing the incidence of tobacco by
simulating respiratory tract sensations in a user
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007