Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte WARING et al - Page 5
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2006 > Ex Parte WARING et al - Page 5
Appeal No. 2006-2797 Page 5
Application No. 09/341,821
to be a property of the opening valve. We further construe “self-sealing” to have its
“ordinary and customary meaning” (Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)), i.e., to seal by itself (“self”) without
assistance.
Making the vessel “self-sealing” protects the product contained in the aerosol
vessel from contamination by sealing it up after the product has been discharged. This
is consistent with the vessel’s purpose “to package a [wound] gel in multi-dose
packaging which minimises contamination once opened.” Id., page 2, lines 9-11.
Neither the claims nor the specification require the self-sealing opening valve to have a
particular structure.
In sum, we construe “self-sealing barrier aerosol vessel” to be a vessel having a
first compartment for containing the wound gel and second compartment, which is
isolated from it, that contains pressurized gas to facilitate discharge of the wound gel
from the vessel. The first compartment comprises a valve or port, through which gel
can be introduced into the vessel or discharged from it, and which seals up by itself
after a single dosage of gel is expelled from the vessel.
Anticipation
Claims 1-4, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Jass.1
1 Jass et al. (Jass), U.S. Pat. No. 3,976,223, issued Aug. 24, 1976
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
