Appeal No. 2003-2062
Application 09/853,568
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 11
and 13 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Mayfield
alone.
Claims 20 and 21 depend from claim 19 and provide further
limitations on the “picture” carried by the label defined in
claim 19. As we noted above, nothing in the Mayfield patent
teaches or suggests a device like that in claim 19 in the form of
a label having a picture thereon that alone identifies the
medicine in the receptacle. It follows that Mayfield also does
not teach or suggest the more specific form of the picture as set
forth in dependent claim 20 and 21 on appeal, particularly
wherein the picture “depicts the body part for which the medicine
is being used” (claim 21). Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Mayfield.
We summarize our treatment of the examiner’s rejections as
follows:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007