Ex Parte Urbanus - Page 4


                 Appeal No. 2007-0671                                                       Page 4                   
                 Application No.  10/836,174                                                                         

                 specification provides further insight into how the components of the dispenser                     
                 are permanently attached.  Specifically, appellant discloses (specification,                        
                 paragraph 31) that “[t]he canister [7] includes a nozzle [93] which is received in                  
                 and permanently held by an atomizing socket [10].  When the content of the                          
                 canister [7] is depleted, the canister and the housing, along with the electronic                   
                 counting circuitry . . . are discarded.”                                                            
                        According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), appellant has not limited the                    
                 definition of the phrase “permanently attached.”  Therefore, the examiner looked                    
                 to the Dictionary for a definition of “permanent.”  Id.  According to the examiner                  
                 (id.), the Dictionary defines “permanent” as “continuing or enduring without                        
                 fundamental or marked change . . . .”  From this the examiner concludes “when                       
                 the canister is housed inside the housing it is permanently attached to the                         
                 housing as per the broadest reasonable interpretation per dictionary definition.”                   
                 We disagree with the examiner’s finding.  Instead, we agree with appellant (Brief,                  
                 page 4), the examiner’s interpretation of the term “permanent” is in conflict with                  
                 the definition the examiner relies upon.                                                            
                        In our opinion, simply placing a canister in a housing does not necessarily                  
                 provide for a permanent attachment of the canister to the housing.  Instead, it                     
                 simply means that the canister is in a housing.  Therefore, we find the examiner’s                  
                 construction of the phrase “permanently attached” insufficient as it says nothing                   

                                                                                                                     
                 3 Appellant’s specification does not identify component “9”.  As we understand the figures,         
                 element “9” refer to the nozzle.  We will proceed with our deliberations with this understanding of 
                 the figures.  We encourage both the examiner and appellant to work together to carefully review     
                 the specification and figures to insure that all numbered elements in the figures are accounted for 
                 in the specification.                                                                               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013