Appeal No. 2000-1669 Page 10
Application No. 08/433,328
F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Both
Calvert and Kraemer are reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by appellants, providing an inhaler for delivering a
measured amount of medicament to the patient while minimizing
the electrostatic attraction of the respirable particles to
the walls of the device (appellants' specification, page 5,
lines 22-28).
Our reliance on Calvert's disclosure of stainless steel
as an anti-static material, although different from the
examiner's reliance on Calvert's teaching of carbon or steel-
filler used to increase the anti-static properties of
polymers, does not warrant our affirmance being denominated as
a new ground of rejection. In our view, appellants have had a
fair opportunity to evaluate Calvert's disclosure of anti-
static materials. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303, 190
USPQ 425, 427 (CCPA 1976).
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007