Appeal No. 95-2880
Application 08/091,294
conclusions made above with regard to claim 5 apply here, also,
and the rejections of claim 10 are not sustained.
Independent claims 11 and 15 both contain the limitation
that there be a shoulder formed on the dispensing end of the
dispensing means and a shoulder formed on the attachment, as well
as a means on one of them for engaging the other. As we stated
above, such an arrangement is not taught by the combination of
Colin, Yu and Yoshioka, or Colin, Yu and Schneider. Nor does
Reed, which is cited against claim 15 et al., alleviate the
problem. Therefore, we will not sustain these rejections of
independent claims 11 and 15 or of dependent claims 12 through
14, 16 and 17.
In the course of our evaluations we have carefully
considered all of the arguments presented by the appellant.
However, as to those rejections which we have sustained, these
arguments did not persuade us that the decision of the examiner
was in error. Our positions with regard to the various arguments
should be apparent from the foregoing discussions of the
rejections.
In addition, we voice our disagreement with the appellant
regarding his assertion in the Reply Brief that Yoshioka and
Schneider are from nonanalogous arts. The test for analogous art
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007