Appeal No. 2004-1815
Application No. 09/781,582 Page 9
Stegath discloses a duplex tube including a tube (1) and a
tube (3). The tubes are joined by a perforated connecting piece
so as to form a unitary structure with two discharge openings.
As illustrated in drawing Figures 1 and 3 of Stegath, the
separate tube openings (covered by separate screw caps 2 and 4)
do not touch or abut each other.
Nonetheless, the examiner takes the position that Stegath
anticipates the claimed structure. In the examiner’s view
(answer, page 18), appellants have defined the claim term “abuts”
at page 3, lines 18-21 of their specification in such a way that
the “close proximity” of the openings of the tubes of Stegath
would be encompassed thereby.
For the reasons set forth by appellants in the briefs, we
disagree. As reasonably explained by appellants (reply brief,
page 2), the second sentence of the referred to passage at page
3, lines 18-21 of their specification does not expand the
ordinary meaning of “abut.” Rather, that second sentence merely
describes a result that can be achieved by having the openings in
a touching (abutting) relationship to each other. There is no
indication in that passage of the specification that suggests
that dispensing two consumable products in close proximity to one
another is a definition for either “abuts” or “side-by-side
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007