Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
structurally and functionally separate elements and cannot together be
considered to form a "housing" as set forth in Appellant's claim 1 (Reply Br.
2-3). This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not exclude a housing
having two or more separate compartments within it. The combined
structure of casing 4 and depending ferrule 10 of Klophaus is a "housing"
comprising a substantially cylindrical wall (the interior wall surface of
ferrule 10) suitable for enclosing an opening of a container having a
diameter matching that of the pen cap 11. Alternatively, the combined
structure of casing 4, ferrule 10 and cap 11 can be considered such a
housing, as claim 1 does not require the housing to be a unitary or integral
structure.
Appellant points out that Klophaus does not specify the dimensions of
the cap 11, much less that the cap has dimensions suitable for enclosing an
opening of a container (Reply Br. 4). While this may be true, Appellant's
claim 1 likewise does not specify the dimensions of the container which the
cylindrical wall has dimensions suitable for enclosing and thus is not limited
to any specific cylindrical wall dimensions. The depending ferrule 10 of the
Klophaus device clearly has dimensions suitable for enclosing the opening
of a container of the size of the pen cap 11.
Appellant's arguments thus fail to demonstrate error in the rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7 as anticipated by Klophaus. The rejection is sustained.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites "means for
preventing a distal end of the elongated member from being completely
retracted through the aperture and into the housing." This feature is
disclosed by Appellant in the form of a ring 32 having a dimension larger
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013