Appeal No. 1999-2632
Application 08/707,097
claims pending in the application, stand allowed.2
The invention relates to a manually-operable tablet
dispenser. A copy of the claims on appeal appears in the
appendix to the appellants’ main brief (Paper No. 16).3
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Meshberg 4,696,415 Sept. 29,
1987
Tieke et al. (Tieke) 5,108,006 Apr. 28,
1992
Claims 2 through 7, 9 through 15, 17 through 22, 24 and
32 through 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2 Although claim 31 was rejected in the final rejection
(Paper No. 12), it has since been allowed by the examiner in
amended form (see page 2 in the examiner’s answer, Paper No.
17).
3 Our review of the claims shows the presence of a number
of minor inconsistencies in terminology which are deserving of
correction in the event of further prosecution. By way of
example, the terms “the sliding part,” “the second end of the
actuating bar” and “the base part” in claim 2 lack a proper
antecedent basis.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007