Appeal No. 2007-0671 Page 10
Application No. 10/836,174
appellant’s claimed invention that the canister is attached in such a manner that
“the unit would become dysfunctional and/or the canister would be destroyed, if
removed.” Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the examiner’s assertion.
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear
in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For the
foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the examiner failed to demonstrate that
every limitation of appellant’s claimed invention is taught by Wolf. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wolf.
Obviousness:
Claims 2-4, 7-9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wolf and Mishelevich.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 7),
Wolf teaches essentially all of the limitations including said
disposable medication dispenser is an inhaler 1590 [and] wherein
said housing permanently attached to said canister defines a
mouthpiece 1585 through which said medication is dispensed, and
wherein said electronic circuit includes a numerical display 1420
positioned on the exterior of said housing . . . .
According to the examiner (id.), Wolf differs from appellant’s claimed invention in
that the numerical display 1420 is not positioned above the “mouthpiece for direct
viewing by a user of said dispenser when said mouthpiece is brought to the
user’s mouth.” For the reasons set forth above under the heading “anticipation,”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013