Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
14 on appeal, at least to the same extent that appellant’s
marking/ flange does in Figures 1 and 2 of the present
application.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Hansen and Rose.
We next look to the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2 and 3, and of independent claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of
Rose. Claims 2 and 10 each require that the first
longitudinal passage formed in the inside wall of the neck of
the ampule be spaced from the longitudinal middle plane of the
ampule and located “in a plane perpendicular to said
longitudinal middle plane.” Claim 3 sets forth a second
longitudinal passage/groove located diametrically opposite the
first longitudinal passage and requires that the first and
second passages define “a plane forming a 90 degree angle with
said longitudinal middle plane.” We find nothing in the
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007