Appeal No. 97-0938
Application 08/292,502
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness is:
Herrick 4,605,398 Aug. 12, 986
Claims 15 through 17 and 19 through 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herrick.3
Reference is made to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 16) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the
merits of this rejection.
Herrick discloses an eye drop dispensing device 12 which is
adapted to be removably attached to an eye drop squeeze bottle or
container 14 having a fluid dispensing opening 18. The device 12
includes a support guide member 40 extending from a housing
member 20 for everting the user’s lower eyelid to allow
unhindered administration of the fluid from a dispensing position
above the eye as shown in Figure 8. As described by Herrick,
3In the final rejection (Paper No. 11), claims 15 through
17 and 19 through 22 also were rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. The
examiner has since withdrawn this rejection in view of the
terminal disclaimer filed on September 13, 1996 (Paper No. 17).
See the advisory letter mailed October 11, 1996 (Paper No. 18).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007