Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
Contrary to appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 9-
10), we do not see that the teachings of Hansen and Rose with
regard to providing multiple grooves/channels in the neck of
the ampule of either Hansen or Rose are limited to the
particular neck shapes seen in Figures 9B and 9C of Rose.
These shapes are merely set forth as being a preferable way to
provide for ease of manufacturing of these multiple
groove/channel arrangements, and are by no means limiting with
regard to the overall teachings of the Rose patent concerning
the use of multiple grooves/channels in the neck of the
ampule, that is, where the multiple grooves are formed
directly in the neck of the ampule as generally seen and
exemplified by Figures 3 and 3A of Rose.
Moreover, even if we accept appellant’s position
(brief, page 10) that the only obvious modification of the
Hansen ampule in view of the Rose patent would be a
modification of the Hansen ampule to provide the rectangular
or square cross section of the Rose patent to provide the four
channels (e.g., as a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007