Appeal No. 2001-2057
Application 09/155,574
We cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. It follows
that we likewise cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2
through 5 and 7 through 9 since these claims stand or fall
with claim 1, as earlier indicated.2
Claim 1 is drawn to a dispenser device for dispensing a
single dose of liquid comprising, inter alia, a closure member
being “secured to” a spray nozzle.
The examiner’s view is that, “as can be best seen in
Figure 3", the valve body (closure body) 17 of Fuchs is
secured to the piston shaft (spray nozzle) 10. As further
explained by the examiner, the closure is secured to the spray
nozzle in an initial closed position (Figure 1) covering
opening 16, and at a final open position (Figure 3) moved away
from the opening 16. Appellants do not agree with this
assessment.
2 It is worthy of noting that the rationales for each of
the examiner’s rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103, applying
the Fuchs teaching alone or with additional prior art, did not
involve the “secured to” recitation of claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007