Appeal No. 2002-0266 Page 7
Application No. 09/409,672
the subject matter recited in the elected claims constitutes “obvious variants” of one
another. Nor has the examiner provided evidence that any of the four tip shapes
recited in claim 35 would have been obvious in view of the cylindrical shape disclosed
by Koreska. This being so, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established
with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim 35, and we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 35 or of dependent claims 38-46 and 53.
Claims 25-34, 52 and 54 stand rejected as being unpatentable over EP, JP, WO
and applicant’s admission. Independent claim 25 sets forth an applicator tip comprising
a porous support and a container body containing a synthetic or semi-synthetic
monomer material, wherein the shape of the tip “is selected from the group consisting
of dome-shaped, conical, cylindrical, chisel and polygonal shapes.” The examiner has
taken the position that the combination of the three references “addresses . . . [the
claimed] combination for the reasons advanced in the English translation of the
Japanese office action submitted with the IDS filed 12/28/99,” and that the limitations
regarding the tip are met by applicant’s admission (Paper No. 10, page 5).
EP discloses a container for storing and dispensing a dose of curable material
and an accelerant therefor, wherein the curable material passes through a fibrous
material containing the accelerant as it is being dispensed. JP discloses a soap
dispenser in which perfume can be added to the soap immediately prior to exiting the
dispenser, and WO is directed to a method for the formulation of fibrin sealant as it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007