Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
(ii) at least one liquid containing breakable capsule associated with the
substrate that, upon breaking of capsule(s), the liquid wets the substrate.
Claim 31 also requires that the container provide a means for breaking the
breakable capsule(s).
Appellant asserts that there is no description or suggestion in the
combination of Bechmann and Beck “to provide a container including a
container with ‘means for breaking said at least one breakable capsule’” (Br.
8).
As discussed above, the combination of Bechmann and Beck teach a
cosmetic product comprising a substrate and at least one liquid containing
breakable capsule associated with the substrate that, upon breaking of
capsule(s), the liquid wets the substrate (FF 1-3, 6 and 7). In addition,
Bechmann teaches a cosmetic article, including cells with at least one
peelable seal comprising a pull string that is integrated with a container (FF
4 and 5). In our opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate that Beckmann’s peelable seal can be attached to the packaging
element which is integrated into the article. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s assertion that Bechmann “does not [teach] a
container with a means for breaking a capsule” (Br. 9). For the foregoing
reasons we are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertion. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Bechmann and Beck. Claims 35-40 fall together
with claim 31.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013