Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
tions, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
11, mailed February 24, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
10, filed January 23, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 12,
filed March 13, 1995) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determina-
tions which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims
1 through 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Rose, we
note that Hansen discloses an ampule like that set forth in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007