Appeal No. 2005-2649
Application No. 09/690,377
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the above-noted
§ 103 rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
In rejecting method claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner contends
that Coplan discloses
a method for preparing an annular sustained release pheromone-
dispenser whose end portions are connected to each other (Figs. 3a and
3b); comprising the steps of arranging a plurality of continuous plastic
tubes (Figs. 3a and 3b) wherein the tubes have a diffusivity and a
permeability to a liquid synthetic (Abstract lines 1-3) which are filled with a
liquid synthetic sex pheromone (Fig. 1); fusing them at a predetermined
pitches by heating under a pressure and then cutting then at each fused
portion to produce a dispenser composed of two side by side tubes having
closely sealed both end portions (Figs. 3a and 3b; column 8, lines 53-
57)(answer, page 4).
The examiner concedes that Coplan does not disclose 1) cutting the tubes at a
middle of each fused portion or 2) pulling apart the center portion of the dispenser to
separate the central portion of each tube from the central portion of the other tube as
set forth in claim 9 on appeal. To account for the first of these differences the examiner
contends that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have modified Coplan's method by cutting
the tubes at a middle of each such fused portion, since applicant has not
disclosed that cutting the tubes at a middle of each such fused portion
solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears
that the invention would perform equally well with Coplan cutting line by
the end of the fusing portion (Fig. 3a) Note that Coplan at Fig. 4a
inherently disclosing cutting the tube at a middle of the fused portion (Fig.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007