Ex Parte WARING et al - Page 5


            Appeal No. 2006-2797                                                          Page 5              
            Application No. 09/341,821                                                                        

            to be a property of the opening valve.  We further construe “self-sealing” to have its            
            “ordinary and customary meaning” (Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,            
            1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)), i.e., to seal by itself (“self”) without            
            assistance.                                                                                       
                   Making the vessel “self-sealing” protects the product contained in the aerosol             
            vessel from contamination by sealing it up after the product has been discharged.  This           
            is consistent with the vessel’s purpose “to package a [wound] gel in multi-dose                   
            packaging which minimises contamination once opened.”  Id., page 2, lines 9-11.                   
            Neither the claims nor the specification require the self-sealing opening valve to have a         
            particular structure.                                                                             
                   In sum, we construe “self-sealing barrier aerosol vessel” to be a vessel having a          
            first compartment for containing the wound gel and second compartment, which is                   
            isolated from it, that contains pressurized gas to facilitate discharge of the wound gel          
            from the vessel.  The first compartment comprises a valve or port, through which gel              
            can be introduced into the vessel or discharged from it, and which seals up by itself             
            after a single dosage of gel is expelled from the vessel.                                         


            Anticipation                                                                                      
                   Claims 1-4, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by            
            Jass.1                                                                                            




                                                                                                              
            1 Jass et al. (Jass), U.S. Pat. No. 3,976,223, issued Aug. 24, 1976                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007