Appeal 2007-2072
Application 10/220,606
1 (Sirago, col. 2, ll. 34-36; col. 2, l. 65 – col. 3, l. 5). “Presence of the enlargements
2 assures that there will be no restriction to the free flow of liquid from the ampuls
3 [sic] when broken, to the mixing pocket and likewise no restriction to venting air
4 or gas from the mixing pocket back to the recesses” (Sirago, col. 2, ll. 39-43).
5 The Appellants argue that Discko’s adhesive-free passage 229 is never
6 closed and, therefore, is not selectively openable, and that Sirago does not have a
7 sealed passage between the ampules and any other portion of the drug testing
8 device (Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3).
9 The Examiner argues that Discko’s passage 229 is selectively openable
10 because the contents do not move through it from the medicament well to the
11 applicator well until the medicament well is squeezed (Answer 7). The Examiner
12 argues that “[a] channel is not formed until pressure is applied to the device”
13 (Answer 8). The Examiner is incorrect. Discko’s adhesive-free passage initially is
14 open. Medicament does not flow through the passage until the medicament well is
15 squeezed, but that squeezing does not open the passage; it merely passes
16 medicament though an already-open passage.
17 The Examiner argues that a door that is locked, unlocked or ajar is
18 selectively openable because it can be moved from its current position (Answer 7).
19 The Examiner, however, has not established that, like a locked or unlocked closed
20 door, Discko’s passage 229 can be closed, or that like an ajar door, Discko’s
21 passage 229 is closable or is further openable such as, for example, when
22 medicament flows through it.
23 The Appellants argue that Discko and Sirago would not have provided a
24 motivation or suggestion for putting Discko’s medicament in a closed receptacle
25 (Reply Br. 6-7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013