Appeal No. 2006-2797 Page 7 Application No. 09/341,821 To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We concur with the Examiner that Jass’s “valve-actuated aerosol package” contains all the elements of the claimed “self-sealing barrier aerosol vessel,” anticipating claim 1. Jass’s dispensing valve is kept shut with a compression spring [30] that prevents the flowable materials present in the containers from entering into the exit passageway. Jass, column 3, lines 28-47. The exit ports are opened by depressing the compression spring to actuate the dispensing valve. Id., column 4, lines 35-40. Once actuated, the “the gas under pressure in pressure tight chamber B” forces the piston upward, pushing the flowable materials through the exit passageway and out through the dispensing valve. Id., column 4, lines 38-45. As a result, “a uniform, metered amount of the flowable material” is discharged from the package. Id., column 4, lines 46-58. Jass indicates that “dispensing valve assembly” forms “a pressure tight closure when the valve is closed. Id., column 3, lines 20-24. This structure described by Jass can be characterized as “self-sealing” since the compression spring [30] in combination with the lower pressurized container keep the valve shut. Jass states that the “relative metering” of the flowable material from the container “is constant throughout the life of the dispenser,” indicating that it contains “multiple doses,” as required by claim 1. Id., column 4, line 66-column 5, line 2. Appellants state that the “self-sealing plug” at column 2, lines 53-57 of Jass, relates to the “pressure sealed chamber,” and is not “self-sealing” as required by the claims. Brief, page 3. We agree that the self-sealing plug described by Jass is for thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007