Appeal 2007-1856
Application 10/808,652
the top, respectively, have equal radii (FF 1, 4). The drawings also do not provide
support for two surfaces having equal radii (FF 4, 6).
We therefore conclude that the Specification as originally filed does not
provide written description support for the claim language added by the
Amendment dated July 25, 2005 (FF 2). We therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
We sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection based on Gerondale in view of
Baudin.
Appellants argue:
Baudin discloses a snap cap 8 which includes a smooth
bulge 40 shaped to match the concave side of the
membrane 21. Clearly, because of the hinge nature of
the cap, rotational sealed engagement is not possible, nor
taught.
In addition, the combination of Gerondale and
Baudin would not result in an operable device.
Accordingly, under these circumstances, a combination
of the references is improper [Appeal Br. 5-6].
We are not persuaded by the argument that the combination of Gerondale and
Baudin is inoperable because in the proposed combination, the cap 8 in Baudin
would be rotatably and not hingedly connected to the dispenser. Nowhere is it
proposed to modify Baudin to replace its hinge 9 with a screw threaded connection
as Appellants allege. Rather, what the Examiner proposed was to modify
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013