Appeal No. 2001-0140
Application No. 09/356,916
and to the brief (Paper No. 12) and reply brief (Paper No. 15)
for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Braverman in view of Peery. The examiner finds that
Braverman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 including an
Nth (2nd) dispenser containing an active agent. In the
examiner’s view, the depiction in Braverman, in Figures 2 and 4,
in which two individual content elements is contained in a
chamber 20 and one individual content element in another chamber
depicts a binary dispensing array. The examiner also argues that
Braverman twice explicitly refers to the use of his invention in
dispensing agents in a prescribed or predetermined sequence which
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007