Appeal 2007-2072
Application 10/220,606
1 the pocket is a pre-defined break zone (22, which corresponds to the Appellants’
2 selectively-openable passage area) (Peuker, col. 4, ll. 29-37).
3 The Appellants argue that there would have been no motivation or
4 suggestion for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peuker and Sirago
5 (Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 8-10).
6 The Examiner relies upon the same reason for including a closed receptacle
7 in Peuker’s cushion-shaped compartment as was relied upon for including a closed
8 receptacle in Discko’s medicament well (Answer 9). The Examiner has not
9 established that the substance in Peuker’s cushion-shaped compartment is not
10 premeasured adequately or is any less accurately measured than that in Sirago’s
11 ampules. The Examiner’s mere speculation that one of ordinary skill in the art
12 would have included a closed receptacle in Peuker’s cushion-shaped compartment
13 to provide a desired premeasured amount of liquid if not sufficient for establishing
14 a prima facie case of obviousness.
15 We therefore conclude that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
16 case of obviousness over either Peuker in view of Sirago or Peuker in view of
17 Sirago and Franck.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013