Appeal No. 2006-2797 Page 8
Application No. 09/341,821
purpose of sealing the lower chamber. However, this disclosure is different from the
description of the dispensing valve (as discussed above) which we have concluded
satisfies the claimed requirement that the vessel is “self-sealing.”
Appellants contend that the Jass’s package does not “address the avoidance of
contamination during its use,” the advantage they describe in the specification for the
claimed subject matter. Brief, page 3. As pointed out by the Examiner, this limitation is
not recited in the claims. Answer, page 5, ¶ 2. More to the point is whether Jass
describes an aerosol package that meets all the expressly recited limitations of claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that it does. Accordingly, we conclude that
there is adequate evidence to establish a case of prima facie anticipation of claim 1.
Appellants have not provided convincing arguments to rebut it. Claims 2-4, 13, and 17
fall together with claim 1.
Obviousness
Jass in view of Court
Claims 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Jass in view of Court.2
Claim 5 requires that the gel comprises four components (a)-(d). The Examiner
cites Court for teaching a wound dressing that contains these four components, arguing
that it would have been obvious to have replaced the wound dressing in Jass with the
gel disclosed in Court for the reason that Jass teaches its package as useful for
2 Court et al. (Court), EP 0 666 081 A1, published Aug. 9, 1995
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007