Appeal 2007-2072
Application 10/220,606
1 The Examiner argues that “[i]t is common and advantageous to provide
2 desired elements in a premeasured amount, such as medicine in a capsule or
3 chemicals in dose bags or bottles, so the user does not have to measure out the
4 individual elements for application in the desired amount” (Answer 8). The
5 Examiner, however, has not established that Discko’s medicament well does not
6 contain the desired application amount or that the amount is any less accurately
7 measured than the amount in Sirago’s ampule, relied upon by the Examiner as
8 corresponding to the Appellants’ closed receptacle (Answer 4). Sirago merely
9 discloses that the ampules are substantially identical in physical form and are
10 adapted to contain a liquid of some specific nature (Sirago, col. 2, ll. 7-10). The
11 Examiner has not pointed out where Sirago discloses that the ampules deliver a
12 precise amount of liquid.
13 The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
14 obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed invention over the combined teachings of
15 either Discko and Sirago or Discko, Sirago, and Franck.
16 Rejections over Peuker in view of Sirago and
17 over Peuker in view of Sirago and Franck
18
19 Peuker discloses a device for storing and dispensing a small quantity of a
20 flowable substance such as a dental liquid (Peuker, abstract; col. 1, ll. 14-15). The
21 device comprises sheets (11, 12, which correspond to the Appellants’ foils) having
22 mutually adhering surfaces except in two areas (Peuker, col. 3, ll. 52-53). In one
23 of those areas is a cushioned-shaped compartment (14, which corresponds to the
24 Appellants’ first chamber) for holding a flowable substance (15), and in the other
25 of those areas is a pocket (16, which corresponds to the Appellants’ pouch) for
26 receiving a brush (13) (Peuker, col. 3, ll. 53-57). Between the compartment and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013