Ex parte HOYT - Page 5

                Appeal No. 96-1596                                                                                                            
                Application No. 08/106,489                                                                                                    

                unpersuasive for the following reason.  As set forth above, Stull                                                             
                does disclose each and every limitation recited in claim 1.  In                                                               
                that regard, contrary to the appellant's argument, Stull does                                                                 
                disclose an intermediate portion located between the blade                                                                    
                portion and the engagement portion of his dispensing cap.                                                                     
                Furthermore, Stull's sloping wall 27 and the portion of Stull's                                                               
                blade 34 which forms a part of the orifice portion 26 (as shown                                                               
                in Figures 3 and 4) oppose each other and are angled towards each                                                             
                other.  Additionally, in our view, the intermediate and                                                                       
                engagement portions together (i.e., all of Stull's dispensing cap                                                             
                except for that part of blade 34 shown in Figure 1) define a                                                                  
                handle for supporting the blade portion.                                                                                      

                         For the reasons presented above, we sustain the examiner's                                                           
                rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                                                                

                         The appellant has grouped claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 as standing                                                           
                or falling together.   Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR2                                                                                           
                 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 7 and 8 fall with claim 1.  Thus, it                                                                 
                follows that the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 7 and 8 under                                                              
                35 U.S.C.  102(b) is also sustained.                                                                                         

                         2See page 4 of the appellant's brief.                                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007