Appeal No. 95-1747
Application 08/047,994
pushed downwardly, the protrusion on the top
segment will puncture the foil or flat
element of the blister pack.
Preferably, the puncture mechanism has
toothed edges on this protrusion to enhance
puncturing.
Claim 9 is representative of the subject matter on
appeal and a copy of that claim appears in Appendix A to
appellant's brief.2
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by
the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Gibilisco 4,887,755 Dec. 19, 1989
Claims 9 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as the invention.
2The proposed claims found in Appendix B of appellant's
brief have not been considered by this panel of the Board. As
explained in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of the brief,
these claims were discussed with the examiner in a telephone
interview on June 1, 1994, but no formal amendment was submitted
by appellant because the examiner indicated that he would not
enter such an amendment.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007