Appeal No. 95-1747
Application 08/047,994
the backing or base (e.g., 29) of the soft pack (23) and maintain
a space between the puncture mechanism protrusion and the dosage
unit (e.g., the tablet, capsule or gel tab 26) so that the dosage
unit (e.g., capsule or gel tab) is not damaged in any way when
the puncture mechanism protrusion is nested within the orifice
and the backing of the soft pack has been punctured.
Thus, in light of the foregoing considerations, we
conclude that the recitations questioned by the examiner in the
present application's claims would have been seen by the person
of ordinary skill in the art to merely allow for a reasonable
variation in the types of soft pack with which the opener may be
used and not as introducing a level of ambiguity that would
obscure the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Since we do not consider that an artisan possessing the ordinary
level of skill in this art would fail to comprehend the scope and
content of the claims on appeal when the questioned claim
recitations are given a reasonable definition or interpretation
that is consistent with appellant's specification, the examiner's
rejection of claims 9 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, must be reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007