Appeal No. 2006-2797 Page 10
Application No. 09/341,821
compartment container for storing Court’s single composition. This rejection is
reversed.
Sperry in view of Jass
Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sperry3 in
view of Jass.
Although Appellants did not separately argue any of the claims in this group,
because we found claim 8 to be anticipated, rather than obvious over the prior art, we
decided to separately address claims 9, 19, and 20.
Claim 8
Claim 8 has three steps: 1) filing the inner container of the aerosol vessel with
gel; 2) sealing it with an opening valve; and 3) introducing pressure into the vessel
“between the inner container and the outer casing container.” The Examiner states that
these three steps are taught by Sperry. Answer, page 9. She concludes that it would
have been obvious to have used Sperry’s container for a wound treating composition as
described in Jass, but does not clearly articulate the motivation for making this
combination. Id.
Appellants argue that Sperry does not “teach or suggest a dispensing vehicle
that contains multiple doses of wound-treating material.” Brief, page 4. They also
argue that Sperry teaches dispensing a liquid, and not a wound gel. Id., page 5.
We do not find Appellants arguments persuasive. Sperry teaches that an aerosol
container for dispensing wound cleaning compositions can be sterilized after filling,
either by irradiation or autoclaving. Sperry, column 2, lines 64-68; column 6, lines 20-
3 Sperry et al. (Sperry), U.S. Pat. No. 5,059,187, issued Oct. 22, 1991
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007