Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 5 and 6, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omata in view of
Mahaffey.
Although appellants contend that dependent claim 3 on appeal
is separately patentable, we note that the argument presented is
the same as that treated above and is equally unconvincing here,
especially since Mahaffey expressly teaches a product dispenser
wherein the attachment member is in the form of a ridge (116)
adaptable to secure a clip thereto (Mahaffey Figures 9 and 10).
Thus, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Omata in view of Mahaffey is also sustained.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and sets forth the requirement
that the product within the dispenser is “a plurality of mint
tablets.” In addition to using Omata and Mahaffey as set forth
above, the examiner adds Aylward for its teaching of a flat
tablet case for dispensing mints shaped as pills or tablets (see,
e.g., col. 1, lines 26-27 and lines 35-37). Although Omata
specifically mentions use of the flat tablet case therein with
“refreshing tablets or the like” (col. 1, lines 5-6), it does not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007