Appeal No. 2003-0132
Application 09/741,356
examiner has not determined the scope and content of a patent
claim and the prior art relative to a claim in the application at
issue, nor determined the differences between the scope and
content of such patent claim and a claim in the application at
issue. Nor has the examiner, in the rejection, set forth any
evidential basis to support a conclusion that the invention
defined in a claim at issue is an obvious variation of the
invention defined in a claim in the prior patent and thus
established that such a claim would constitute an unjustified
extension of the term of the right to exclude granted by the
patent.
The examiner’s assertion (answer, page 4) that “the
inclusion of structures and limitations not found in claims 10-14
and 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,992,686 as compared with claims 1-8
and 9-17 of the subject application are conventional and well
known in the dispensing art” and the conclusion that it therefore
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to
have included these structures and limitations in order to obtain
the benefit of their associated function as is old and well known
in the art” are nonsensical, woefully factually inadequate, and
provide no meaningful insights or factual analysis for our
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007