Appeal No. 2003-2062
Application 09/853,568
Given the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellant's claims 1, 2, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Claim 19 differs from the claims noted above, in that it
sets forth a device for describing the medicine contained in a
medicine receptacle, wherein the device comprises “a label having
a picture that alone identifies the medicine.” As urged by
appellant on pages 8-9 of the brief, no such label with a picture
that alone identifies the medicine is shown or described in
Mayfield. The marker/label (22) of Mayfield in the shape of a
given symbol and/or in a particular color is not “a label having
a picture that alone identifies the medicine” (emphasis added).
Thus, the examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mayfield will not be sustained.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 4 through
11, 13 through 16, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Mayfield. Claims 4 through 6, which depend from claim 1, further
define the type of information or characteristic which the iconic
label may depict, i.e., the reason why the medicine is being
used, the results of the consumption of the medicine by a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007