Appeal No. 2006-3310 Page 10
Application No. 10/282,424
We do not find this argument persuasive. WO ‘528 describes a dispenser
containing an anti-galling agent. WO ‘528, page 12, lines 8-28. Appellants have not
distinguished the claimed structure from the dispenser disclosed in WO ‘528 and neither
have we. The Examiner relies on Hefling for the addition of grease to WO ‘528, not the
characteristics of the dispensing container. This rejection is affirmed.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is directed to a method of using the article of manufacture of claim 20,
comprising “dispensing” a portion of the anti-seize composition, applying it to a threaded
surface, and “retracting” unapplied amounts.
Appellants argue that WO ‘528 “fails to teach the dispensing and application of
an anti-seize compound.” Brief, page 10. We disagree. WO ‘528 specifically states
that its “dispenser is designed to contain the anti-galling agent to controllably dispense
the anti-galling agent.” WO ‘528, page 12, lines 8-9. “The dispenser also includes a
mechanism to allow a user to controllably remove the solid from the cavity of the
dispenser. The mechanism can include a movable base, a threaded member, a
slidable side member, etc.” Id., page 12, lines 14-17. We find that these elements
describe and enable the claimed method. Appellants have not provided persuasive
arguments to the contrary.
We have also considered Appellants’ other arguments about Hefling and WO
‘628, but do not consider them persuasive because they are not pertinent to the article
of manufacture which is claimed. This rejection is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007