Appeal No. 2004-0088 Page 5
Application No. 09/821,663
(6) the exterior of the dispenser having an indicator for the expiration date or
anniversary date of pill placement within the dispenser.
In making the rejections before us in this appeal, the examiner determined that
limitations (1) to (5) are taught by Mumford's container; that limitation (6) is taught by
Bayliss; and that in view of Bayliss it would have been obvious to provide limitation (6)
to Mumford's container.5
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 11-12) that Mumford's container does not teach
limitation (3) (i.e., the top section having a closing element that engages with the
restraining holder within the bottom section to prevent the pill from moving without
restraint within the enclosure) since, as shown in Figures 1 and 3 of Mumford, the pills
move freely within chamber 53.
Thus, the issue in this appeal is whether or not the claimed top section having a
closing element that engages with the restraining holder within the bottom section to
prevent the pill from moving without restraint within the enclosure is met by (i.e., reads
on) Mumford. In deciding this issue, we must first understand the scope and meaning
of the phrase "to prevent the pill from moving without restraint within the enclosure."
5 The appellant has not disputed this obviousness determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007