Appeal No. 2005-2649
Application No. 09/690,377
4a and column 7, lines 30-36) to come up with the tube shown at Fig. 4b.
(answer, page 5).
Concerning the second difference, the examiner turns to Sakurada, urging that this
patent discloses a method for preparing an annular sustained release pheromone-
dispenser comprising the step of pulling apart a central portion of the dispenser to
separate the central portion of each tube from the central portion of the other tube (Fig.
1 at 18; col. 14, line 65 - col. 15, line 2). Based on such teaching, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention to have modified Coplan’s method to include the step of pulling
apart a central portion of the dispenser to separate the central portion of each tube from
the central portion of the other tube, as suggested in Sakurada.
As appellants have pointed out in the reply brief (pages 1-3), the examiner’s position
as set forth above totally mischaracterizes the invention disclosed by Coplan. Of
particular concern is the fact that, contrary to the examiner’s findings, Coplan has no
disclosure whatsoever of an annular sustained release pheromone-dispenser wherein
the dispenser uses continuous plastic tubes which have “a diffusivity and a permeability
to a liquid synthetic sex pheromone,” as required in claim 9 on appeal. To the contrary,
Coplan expressly discloses that the attractant or pheromone (8) contained in the tubes
(2) of the dispenser therein “does not escape from the tubes until the tubes are severed
at selected spots between seal regions” (col. 9, lines 29-32) to thereby define or provide
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007