Appeal No. 97-2736
Application 08/067,221
To address the difference between the aperture size in
Pritchard and that in the claimed aerosol actuator, the
examiner urges that Pritchard (column 3, lines 8-11) suggests
that the small constriction aperture (60) therein might have a
size which differs from the disclosed dimensions. From this
disclosure, the examiner then concludes that
Since Pritchard recognizes that a plurality of
dimensions including the aperture diameter may
differ from those disclosed, it would have been
obvious to modify Pritchard to employ any well known
or desired dimensions including a diameter which
would result in a cross sectional area of 0.2-6cm .2
Contrary to the examiner’s position, we do not believe
that the suggestion found in Pritchard at column 3, lines 8-11
is such as to suggest “any... desired dimensions” for the
aperture (60). In this regard, we share appellants’ view as
expressed on pages 5 and 6 of the brief that the disclosure of
Pritchard, when considered as a whole, would not have in any
way been suggestive of a cross sectional area for the small
aperture (60) therein which would fall within appellants’
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007