Appeal No. 2004-0088 Page 8
Application No. 09/821,663
Since Mumford's tablets are free to move within the tablet chamber 53, his walls
52 and 54 do not prevent the tablet from moving within the chamber without providing a
gripping contact that would make removal of the tablet difficult. Accordingly, limitation
(3) is not met by Mumford and the examiner has not presented evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of the applied
prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007