Appeal No. 2006-0798
Application No. 09/828,545
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Appellant argues that Mikkelsen does not teach or suggest a cartridge for a
medicament which includes a tab means in the interior of the cartridge as recited in the
language of claim 3, and that the aspect of Mikkelsen most analogous to Appellant’s
cartridge is Mikkelsen‘s ampoule which has no tab. [See brief at page 4] .
The examiner responds that Mikkelsen’s ampoule does contain a tab, embodied by
a ring near reference number 19 in Fig. 1. The structure the examiner is referring to is
more advantageously viewed in Fig. 2, although reference number 19 is not called out
in that figure. Further, the examiner interprets Mikkelsen’s housing, reference number 1
in Fig. 1, as a cartridge. [See answer at page 5].
We note that Mikkelsen’s housing [1] is an elongated tubular cartridge that contains
a medicament [col. 2 lines 22-24], the housing includes anterior [col. 2 lines 22-24,
referred to as “distal end”] and posterior ends [col. 2 lines 49-53, referred to as
“proximal end”] and a plunger [round member on the distal/anterior end of piston rod 35]
positioned within the housing. The plunger is clearly movable in the housing to dispense
the medicament through said anterior end.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007