Appeal No. 2006-2797 Page 6
Application No. 09/341,821
Jass discloses a “valve-actuated aerosol for separately storing and
simultaneously dispensing” flowable material. Jass, Abstract. As shown in Fig. 1, the
package comprises two separate chambers (inner container [4] and outer container [2])
which are filled with “flowable” materials. The materials are dispensed through a
“dispensing valve” [14] using a “valve actuator” [16]. The package also contains a
pressure sealed lower chamber [B]. When the dispensing valve [14] is opened …, the
pressurized gas is the lower pressure sealed chamber [B] causes the piston to move
away from the container bottom and toward the dispensing valve end of the container.”
Id., column 2, lines 57-62. The piston movement pushes the materials in the inner and
outer containers through the dispensing valve. Jass descries the use of the aerosol
package to dispense a “strippable gel bandage” for burn treatment. Id., column 9, line
16-column 10, line 29.
The Examiner takes the position that Jass describes an aerosol package that
meets all the limitations of claim 1. For the claimed requirement that the vessel contain
“multiple doses of a wound gel,” the Examiner relies on Jass’s disclosure (column 4,
lines 52-56) that the metered amounts of material are dispensed from the package,
implying that it contained multiple doses. Answer, page 5, lines 16-18. The Examiner
states that “[t]he cut off of the flow as well as the self-sealing properties of the aerosol
inherently prevent contamination of the content of the aerosol.” Id., page 5, lines 18-20.
Appellants argue that “the container in Jass et al. is not self-sealing as required
in the rejected claims.” Brief, page 3. They contend that the “self-sealing plug in the
container bottom” described by Jass is used to keep the lower chamber of pressured
with gas, not to self-seal the container to avoid contamination. Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007