Ex Parte Urbanus - Page 5


                 Appeal No. 2007-0671                                                       Page 5                   
                 Application No.  10/836,174                                                                         

                 with regard to whether the canister is removable or permanently attached to the                     
                 housing.  In contrast, according to appellant’s claimed invention, the canister                     
                 must be permanently attached to the housing.  As discussed above, appellant’s                       
                 specification discloses how the canister may be permanently attached, e.g., the                     
                 canister 7 includes a nozzle which is received in and permanently held by an                        
                 atomizing socket 10.  Specification, paragraph 31.  This attachment is such that                    
                 when the canister is empty the entire dispenser is discarded.  Stated differently,                  
                 the canister cannot be removed to allow the housing to be reused with a different                   
                 canister.                                                                                           
                        Claims 2-12 ultimately depend from and further limit the components of                       
                 claim 1.  Of claims 2-12, claims 5-12 require closer inspection.  The examiner                      
                 “asserts that [a]ppellant’s [c]laims 5-12 are directed towards product-by-process                   
                 claims rather than product claims itself [sic]”  Answer, page 10, emphasis                          
                 removed.  According to the examiner (id., emphasis removed),                                        
                        [i]n [c]laim 5, [a]ppellant recites the “electronic circuit includes one                     
                        or more count presetting switches for presetting a count in said                             
                        electronic circuit at the time said housing and said canister are                            
                        combined during initial assembly.  Appellant’s use of the recited                            
                        claim language recites not only a structural element or product “the                         
                        presetting switches” but also a process by which the device or                               
                        product is to be assembled “combined during initial assembly.”  As                           
                        such, [a]ppellant has essentially recited a process by which the                             
                        product is to be assembled rather than an end product itself.                                
                        For his part, appellant argues that claims 5-12 contain limitations that are                 
                 not product-by-process limitations and cannot be ignored.”  Brief, page 8-9.  We                    
                 agree.  Claim 5 depends from and further limits the electronic circuit of claim 1.                  
                 Specifically, claim 5 requires that the electronic circuit includes one or more                     




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013