Ex Parte FOX - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2003-1491                                                                          Page 2                   
               Application No. 09/473,834                                                                                             


                                                         BACKGROUND                                                                   
                       The appellant's invention relates to a method of dispensing viscous liquid                                     
               contents from a flexible tube.  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the                                  
               appendix to the appellant's brief.                                                                                     


                       Claims 5 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                                  
               U.S. Patent No. 5,361,9391 to Robertson, Jr. (Robertson).                                                              


                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                  
               the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final                                      
               rejection (Paper No. 11, mailed March 18, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed                                   
               November 6, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection,                                   
               and to the brief (Paper No. 15, filed July 2, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed                               
               December 23, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                         


                                                             OPINION                                                                  
                       In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                                
               the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the                               



                       1 Issued November 8, 1994.                                                                                     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007