Appeal No. 96-3064
Application 08/089,512
Marks 4,115,939 Sept. 26, 1978
The appellant has stated in the brief that the claims
do not stand or fall together and has provided reasons,
therefore, in the argument section of his brief.
The examiner has rejected claims 7-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Marks.
The examiner states the rejection, thusly:
"Marks does not disclose the method
step of shaking the bottle in order to
form small bubbles in the bottle. Marks
does show in figures 1-5 a plastic
bottle (10) comprising a front label
(12) having a cut-out portion (16), a
back label (14) having graphic indicia
(36) printed thereon, and a transparent
or translucent liquid product (see
column 3, lines 17-20). Marks discloses
in column 3, lines 17-20 that the liquid
product could be an alcoholic beverage
or some other kind of transparent or
translucent product. It is considered
to be within one skilled [sic, the level
of skill] in the art to place a
windshield treatment in the bottle since
this type of product is known to be
transparent or translucent. Further, in
regard to the step of shaking the
bottle, a person picking the bottle up
and setting it back down is considered
to be equivalent to the shaking step.
Also, products such as windshield
treatments generally have directions
which suggest that the bottle be shaken
before it is used. It would have been
obvious to one in the art to modify
Marks by shaking the bottle since this
would occur during normal use of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007