Appeal No. 2007-0671 Page 11
Application No. 10/836,174
we disagree with the examiner’s findings with regard to Wolf. In short, Wolf does
not teach a housing for the electronic circuit permanently attached to said
canister.
The examiner relies on Mishelevich to teach “an inhaler with an electronic
circuit wherein the display is position on the exterior about the mouthpiece so
that the patient may receive feedback and view the effectiveness of the use of
the device while the device is in use.” (Id.) As presented to us for review,
Mishelevich fails to make up for the deficiencies in Wolf as discussed above
under the heading “anticipation.”
The examiner makes no attempt to address the arrangement of the
canister and the housing for the electronic circuit in Mishelevich’s device, or how
these structural features relate to appellant’s or Wolf’s device. Specifically, the
examiner fails to address whether or not Mishelevich discloses a device wherein
the housing for the electronic circuit is permanently attached to the canister, as
required by appellant’s claimed invention. For his part, appellant does not
address the Mishelevich reference.
Accordingly, we vacate the rejection of claims 2-4, 7-9, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wolf and
Mishelevich, and remand the application to the examiner for further
consideration. Upon receipt of the application, we encourage the examiner to
take a step back and reconsider appellant’s claimed invention. In doing so, the
examiner should pay particular attention to the foregoing discussion addressing
the requirement in appellant’s claimed invention that the housing for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013