Appeal No. 2006-2060 Page 3
Application No. 10/605,873
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed December 22, 2005) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed November
16, 2005) and reply brief (filed February 13, 2006) for the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 as being anticipated by
English, the examiner has determined that English discloses a capsule with a
capsule body having a first member (4) and a second member (9) and that meets all
of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 3-4).
The appellant, on page 5 of the brief, appears to distinguish the English
reference noting that in English the cutters penetrate partition (4) and the sections
(2 and 3) are then turned relative to one another to cause the partition to be cut
loose from its flange. The appellant argues that in the claimed invention, it is the
cutting edge of the second member that tears open the sealed closed bottom of the
first member allowing the entire contents to be released from the capsule
completely. To the extent that the appellant is arguing that English fails to disclose
“a cutting edge disposed between said first prong and said second prong,” as
recited in claim 1, we agree. It is clear from the description on page 2, lines 10-16
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007